Ms. Warren, is the city ready to proceed? Yes. Ready? 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 otherwise noted. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left-hand side, right over here. The city will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence the city submits or to ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a ruling. 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 I'm going to ask if you are going to testify today or you think that you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, and ask you now to rise and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. I'd also ask at this time, if you have a cell phone or device on you, to please silence it. And also, if you're going to have a conversation with somebody in this room, please take it outside, as the sound does carry pretty well in here. All right. Consent agenda. Magistrate, I'm requesting approval of the minutes and the consent agenda as written. Both approved. Thank you. You can call your first case. Case number one, they are Code 26-000-588. The owner's name is Coco Yogi, Inc. The registered agent is Corey N. Heyman. The property address is 111 Southeast 1st Avenue, Apartment 319. The code officer on the case is James Easley. However, the case will be presented by Connor Lee. Good afternoon, Magistrate. Connor Lee, Clean and Safe Officer for the City of Delray Beach, presenting Code 26-000-588. On February 8, 2026, during the Coco Market event at Old School Square, respondent Coco Yogi, Inc., whose registered agent is Corey Heyman, violated the terms of the revocable license agreement between the City of Delray Beach and the business Coco Yogi, Inc., violated the City's special event policy and violated City Code Section 101.32, assemblies and special events. The respondent Coco Yogi authorized H3 Dog Rescue, whose registered agent is Rodney Mayo, for Hospility Helping Hands, Inc., to display multiple dogs on the licensed facilities, despite having no authorization to host an event with animals. This unauthorized activity resulted in a 16-year-old victim suffering a severe facial laceration from a dog bite, requiring medical intervention for the injury that may result in permanent scarring. The City of Delray Beach has determined this violation to be irreversible and irreparable in nature, as the harm caused could not be undone or cured. The physical disfigurement of a minor and the result liability exposure to the taxpayers of the City of Delray Beach constitute a completed irreparable act. Service of notice was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on March 9, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted to March 6, 2026, an affidavit of posting is attached to the case, and this property was cited under an irreversible notice of violation under City Code Sections 101, 101.27, Subsection A, Subsection B, no animals in public parks, and 101.32, assemblies and special events. I have five case documents I would like to introduce into evidence. Good afternoon. Lynn Jelen from the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Lee, what are we looking at at Exhibit 1? So this is the application for the special event held on February 8, 2026. And what is the applicant's name? Cocoa Yogi, Inc. And what is the event name or title? Cocoa Market. Okay. What do we see on Exhibit 2? These are just some of the details, criteria checked off by the owner of the business and marking off what they plan to have during the event. So this is page 2 of the application that we just saw the cover sheet for? Yes. And I'm going to draw your attention to the section that states general event components which may require a temporary use permit waiver. Do you see that? Yes. And do you see a section that's entitled Animals 101.27 slash LDR 2.4.6 F8? Yes, I do. And is that checked off? No. Do you understand the purpose of this section? Yes. And tell us what the purpose of this is. So this is... Just take it off. Do you want to use that mic? Just take it off. Just take the mic off. Just take it off. No, that one on the podium. Just take it off. I see. Okay. Try that. Okay. The purpose is so that the city is aware of what is going on at the event and then also to make sure that we have the proper coverage and liability. Sorry. Excuse me. Drawing in blank. Protections. Thank you. Protections for the event. So certain events, certain components of an event require a special permit, correct? Yes. And one of those special permits is for animals, correct? Yes. The city's code of ordinances states that in order to have animals at a special event, it requires additional permission from the director of parks and recreation. Is that correct? Yes. And because this isn't checked off, does that mean that that permit was obtained? It means it was not. Thank you. All right. Let's go to the next exhibit. What are we looking at here? So this is the SunBiz application for Cocoa Yogi, just showing that this is the Cocoa Yogi entity name and then also the registered agent is Corey Heyman, as mentioned in the script. Okay. Exhibit four. And exhibit four, this is the posting of the notice at the registered agent's property. Thank you. And then this is an affidavit for the posting of notice conducted by James Easley on March 6, 2026. Thank you. That is all I have. Thank you. So at this time, we would move Exhibits one through five into evidence. Sir, can I have your name, please? My name is Greg McAloon. I'm an attorney with Saks Saks Kaplan. I'm sorry. Can you spell your last name, sir? M-C-A-L-O-O-N. McAloon? McAloon. McAloon? Yes. Mr. McAloon, do you have any objections to the documents the city would like to put in evidence? I have no objection. So admit it. I'm going to let the city finish presenting their case, and then you can present yours. Of course. Thank you. Were you present on the date of the incident, February 8th? No, I was not. And do you know who was from the city? I believe an officer Windsor responded. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. McAloon, do you have any questions for... You had mentioned the property had been cited. Can you identify which property was cited? Which property was cited for the notice? Yes. It was the registered agent. That's where it was cited. Understood. So this wasn't affixed to a property. It was affixed to an entity. Yes. Understood. Thank you. Can I follow up? Sure. So in this instance, where did this incident occur? Was it on city-owned property? Yes, Old School Square. And your understanding is that Ms. Heyman had a license agreement with the city of Delray Beach? Yes. And that license agreement authorized her to use the city's property? Yes. For her event, correct? Yes. Yes. And so Ms. Heyman was charged as a violator, correct? Yes. Not as a property owner because the public owns this property, correct? Exactly. Thank you. Nothing further. May I? Mm-hmm. Just one question. Can you confirm what you stated that there was a permit issued for this event? Well, yes. It's right here. Thank you. Nothing further. Does the city have any additional concerns? Officer Windsor. Officer Nicholas Windsor. Good afternoon, officer. Can you state your name for the record and spell your last name? It's Officer Windsor, Nicholas Windsor. W-I-N-D-S-O-R. And where are you employed? With the city of Delray Beach Police Department. Oh, sorry. In what capacity? As a police officer. And how long have you been employed in Delray Beach? About 15 years. Were you working for the city of Delray Beach in your capacity as a police officer on February 8, 2026? Yes, ma'am. And did there come a point in time where you were called out to the city's Old School Square campus? Yes, ma'am. Can you tell us why you were called out there? I was dispatched in the vise that there was a child that was bitten in the face by a dog. That's when I got there. Obviously, they were dispatching the police department and the fire department for this. Was there a special event on the property that day? Yes, Cocoa Market. And do you know if that's a city-sponsored event or is that just a private event that's held on city property? A private event. And when you arrived on scene, what did you first observe? When I arrived on scene, there was a 16-year-old female juvenile. She was being loaded up into the ambulance, so I blocked traffic to the rear of that. The face was covered a lot by towels and gauze. I walked up and made contact with where, I guess, the animal was, trying to locate it. There was a dog rescue on property that was on display. That's where the animal came from, I guess, who brought the animal to the property. So the dog rescue was actually part of the Cocoa Market event? It was set up as a vendor for the event. Okay. And when you approached a young juvenile, could you see blood? Yes. What was her demeanor? She's crying and upset and in pain. Okay. Who did you speak with first? I first wanted to locate the dog to find out, make sure the dog's not running loose. It wasn't a private animal or anything like that. I was advised that the animal belonged to the rescue. That was the vendor at the time. The owner of the rescue actually took possession of the dog away from the handler and went to the rear of Dada in the parking lot and secured the animal into a van that was with cages and stuff. So that's how they transported, I guess, the animals to the event. What is Dada, for those who don't know? It's a restaurant that's located on North Swinton and First Street. Almost like across the street from the old school square campus? Yeah, just pretty much catacorned. This happened closer to the Atlantic side on North Swinton. The restaurant was on the northern side of North Swinton, First Street, so within like the same block. Okay, so after you made contact with the handler or the dog, the rescue, what did you do next? I wanted to make contact with the handler. I got a statement from the handler. The handler, first I identified the handler and identified the owner of the vendor or of the rescue. The handler gave me a statement of that she was sitting down with her back against the tree. The dog was upside down on its back, and she was rubbing the stomach of the dog. She advised that the 16-year-old female came up, asked for permission to pet the dog. She gave permission to pet the dog. When she bent down, then the dog lunged and bit her in the face. The handler also stated the dog was on the leash. It was under her control at the time, so there was no issue of having the dog off of a leash. It was just having the dog there. Is it the reason why the dog bit her? I don't know. But once I got a statement from her, I went over and got the information for the dog from the owner of the animal rescue. And who was the owner of the animal rescue? It's Mr. Rodney Mayo. Is that the same person that owns Dada's? Yes. Okay. And was he there? Yes. And what did he tell you, if anything? He was pretty much distraught, and he was upset. It was difficult to actually locate him at first because they told me, the employees of the rescue told me, that he went to Dada. I walked over to Dada. There was no presence of him that I could find. But in the fact, he was actually in the rear parking lot, which I didn't have a clue that's where he parked. So it was a little bit of confusion. I'm trying to find out where he was. But he did provide, he showed the animal to me where they had a van back there with adequate caging to secure him. They gave me the information as far as the dog's name, the breed, the age. And the dog actually did have a registered animal control number with the county. So I gathered all that information, documented it, and some report. Did you ever make further contact with the juvenile? Yes, after I handled everything on scene, I went out to Delray Medical to make contact with her. She was in the emergency department. And in her room, she still had the towel that I was still holding there. She had a bad laceration to the right side on her cheek. The most severe laceration that she had was basically a severed from the bottom of her nose through the top of the lip. So that was pretty much in two pieces. I think you described it almost like a cleft lip. Yes, pretty much. It's almost the exact picture of it. But it was from the actual bottom of the nose. A plastic surgeon that was on duty was there. I didn't want her to remove everything to be able to have to take pictures because it was still an open wound at the time. The plastic surgeon on scene said that he was going to work to put it back together, but also said there was going to be permanent scarring no matter what. The severity of the scarring and the disfigurement would depend on the further medical treatment she was going to require. To add the wrench into this mix or add an additional problem with the treatment is that both of them were from Illinois, so they were traveling back to home the next day. So he was there to repair it so it was stable enough to get home where she needed to seek additional medical in Illinois. Understood. Were you able to ascertain how many additional dogs were on the property that day? I don't know the exact on it. What I've observed on it, if I went back to my body cam video, I could get the approximate amount. I would say there was four or five that were on, including the dog that was involved in the bite. So four or five total. And it was your impression that this was clearly a vendor? It wasn't somebody just walking through the park with their dog that day? No, absolutely. There was a tent set up with signage for the animal rescue. People were in shirts with the animal rescue on the shirts. It very much appeared that it was a vendor for the event and not just a random group coming through them. Perfect. Thank you. Nothing further. Mr. McElwain? Oh, wait, sorry. Got your rear over there. Yeah, first I want to say thank you for your service. I respect what you do protecting the community. You had mentioned on multiple occasions that the dog rescue had brought and kept and that the handler of the dog rescue brought and kept the dog. Is that correct? The dog handler was the one in control of the dog at the time of the bite. The animal rescue was the owner of the dog itself. And was the handler with the animal rescue? Yes. Okay, thank you. She was dressed in the uniform with the label in for the rescue. And may I ask, did you personally witness the dog bite? No, I did not. Okay, thank you. Is there any doubt in your mind that a dog from the rescue bit this child in the face? Is there any doubt that it didn't? My opinion, the dog from the rescue bit the, had multiple people on scene point out the dog and even the rescue stated what dog was involved. Right, the handler told you it was the dog that you observed, correct? Yes. And Mr. Mayo? And he was present right there and he said the dog belonged to him and it was the animal rescues. And the juvenile? The juvenile, I believe she gave me a description, but she didn't have exact. There was, she had an aunt, a family member that was still on scene while she was being transported. The aunt pointed out and said what dog, the color of the dog and everything else. So when I actually located the dog, this is the one that the rescue told me was involved by the handler and the owner. So it was consistent? Yes. Thank you. Final question. You had mentioned that Mr. Mayor of the dog rescue said they were the owner of the dog, correct? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. City calls Allie Berman. Good afternoon, Ms. Berman. Can you state your full name for the record and spell your last name? Sure. Allie Berman, B-E-H-R-M-A-N. And are you employed with the city of Delray Beach? Yes. In what capacity? I'm the special events manager. And tell the magistrate what you do as part of your duties. I handle all the permitting for events on city property. And did you have occasion to handle the permitting for an event known as a cocoa market? Yes. And did, I'm going to show you what's been marked as cities exhibit one. Can you take a look at that document? Do you recognize it? Yes. What is it? It is the special event application for the event. So walk us through briefly the process. If somebody wants to host a special event in the city of Delray Beach, what's the first thing that they have to do? They need to fill out an application and submit it to me with a site map and an application fee. And then it goes to the C-TAC board. What does C-TAC stand for? Special event technical advisory committee. Okay. That group tells us whether the event logistically and safely can happen. And they make a recommendation to the development services management group who makes the final decision on approval of events. Okay. So the event, the cocoa market, it went through that process? Yes. And as part of that process to, I guess, to commence the process, Ms. Hayman submitted the special event application? Yes. And as part of the application, does she have to tell you if she needs any temporary permits or waivers to the land development regulations? Yes. She checks that off on the second page, on the bottom of the second page of the application. And on this application, and this is the application that's specific to the event that occurred on February 8th of 2026? Yes. And as part of the temporary use permit or waiver, what did she check off? She checked off cooking on site, food trucks, live music, merchandise vendors, and signs and banners. And when somebody checks that off, what's the next step in the process for the city to do? I fill out a memorandum with the waivers to be signed off by the city manager to either approve or deny the waiver requests. Okay. And were those requests that she made approved? Yes. Is there a box that she would have checked off if she was going to have a rescue on site? Yes. She would have checked off the animals. And what would have been the process for that? Once that is checked off, I submit a waiver request to the director of Parks and Recreation to look at it and approve or deny it. Okay. Why does the city care? What's the reasoning behind having to have this extra set of eyes on these additional waivers or permits? Just to keep everyone safe and make sure that they're going by the codes and ordinances that the city has in place. Does a permit producer or a special event producer have to submit a vendor list to the city? Yes. And what does that vendor list tell you? What vendors are going to be on site along with their certificate of insurance. And the certificate of insurance, what's the importance of that? To make sure that all vendors are insured. And are they required to list the city as an additional insured? Yes. And why is that? To make sure that the city is covered. For liability, right? For liability. Thank you. And so for the February, so the event date on this application says February 1st. What happened on February 1st? The weather was not favorable for an event. So Ms. Heyman had reached out prior and asked for a date change of the event. And was that approved? Yes. To what date? To February 8th. Okay. And so prior to, because she hosts numerous events, right? I think it's once a month. Yes. And so prior to each event, does she provide you with a site plan? No, it's one site plan for the whole year. And what about a vendor list? Does that ever change? Yes. Every month I'll get a link to the vendors and the insurances for that particular event. Okay. So for this particular event, did you ever get a request to have animals on site? I did not. Did you ever get a request to have an animal rescue on site? I did not. And if you had, what would you have done with that? I would have taken it to the Parks and Recreation Director for approval or denial. And then I would have made sure that they were on the vendor list if it was approved and had their certificate of insurance. So there was never a request to have a vendor by the name of H3 Dog Rescue? No. Was there ever a request to have multiple rescue dogs on display? No. Did you know about that before February 8th? I did not. How did you come to find out about it? I actually got a call the next day from risk management saying there was an incident at the cocoa market. And that's how I found out there was a dog rescue on site. Once an event is approved, is there an agreement that's entered into by the producer in the city? Yes. There's a revocable license agreement. Okay. So I'm going to show you this one. I'm going to show you, I think it's six. I'm going to show you city exhibit six. Can you take a look at that for me? Sure. Can we put six up on the screen? We didn't put it in there. You have it in your bill, by the way. Do you recognize this document? I do. And what is it? It's a revocable license agreement between the city and Cocoa Yogi. So this document lists all the terms and conditions for the approval for the cocoa market event? Correct. And it's revocable. Do you know what that means? It means it can be canceled. And as part of the approval, Ms. Heyman, or Cocoa Yogi, because I guess that's the vendor, they're required to disclose all their vendors and exhibitors, which includes musicians and DJs, to the city, correct? Correct. And she does that routinely? Yes. And, again, was this done for February 8th for H3 Dog Rescue? It was. Oh, for Dog Rescue, no. It was not? It was not. Can we move Exhibit 6 into evidence? We're going to show it to you. Macklin, do you have an objection? No objection. Show it in a minute. Thank you. As part of the agreement, it also notes a list of approved waivers, correct? Yes. And those are the waivers that we talked about that are on that application? Correct. So basically, you take what's put in the application, what's reviewed by the various boards of the city, and then you memorialize it into this agreement, correct? Yes. Do you still have the application for the special event in front of you? No. All right. I'm going to show you this exhibit one again. Can you go to the signature page on the last page? Okay. And as part of the certification that's included in that, an event producer is required to accept responsibility and be accountable for any damage to the event site? Yes. I don't have any further questions. Mr. Macklin? Can you confirm that Cocoa Market's been operating since approximately January of 2022? Yes. Has there been any issues in the past? No. Out of the 50-plus events produced, has there been any complaints, violations, anything along those lines? No. Thank you. I have no questions, but I would just move the complete document, which is the complete application into evidence. Didn't we already admit that as Exhibit 1? Just, we didn't do the full document. It was just the face sheet. I have no objection. All right. So, in a minute. City has no further witnesses. No further witnesses. Mr. Macklin? This will be my case-in-chief. Mm-hmm. So, my name is Greg Macklin, attorney at Saks Saks Kaplan, 6111 Broken Sound Parkway, Northwest Suite 200. With me today is Ms. Corey Heyman, the producer of the event, along with some porters, as we recognize this is a big cultural institution, which has really been intertwined within the fabric of the community. Throughout the testimony, I've heard a lot of arguments based on personal injury, heard a lot of arguments based on contract. I did not hear much arguments based on code enforcement itself. We were under a here, pursuant to 162, adjudicating whether the exact language of the code meets the fact pattern of the description. We're not here based on contract. We're not here based on personal injury. We're here according to code. This matter arises from an unfortunate incident. I'm not trying to disclaim that whatsoever. What happened is unfortunate. However, it's important to recognize that this code enforcement action is not the proper forum. Florida law, specifically 767.04, directly governs liability for dog-related incidents. We're not supposed to be adjudicating a fact pattern of a dog bite through code. Code is left for property, environmental contamination, issues that remain continuing and ongoing. It's not to adjudicate liability based on personal injury claims. Additionally, 767.04 provides the owner of a dog that bites any person while such person is in a public place or lawfully on a private place is liable for damages. We heard testimony from the officer, Coco Yogi's not the owner of the dog. Del Rey's not the owner of the dog. Unfortunately, as was admitted by the code officer, the dog rescues the owner of the dog. I love dogs. I'm not trying to discount that in any way, shape, or form. But we understand proper procedures and implementations in order to assure the safety of the community. As further exampled by the testimony, my client's been a good faith actor since January of 2022. There's not been one complaint, one incident as exampled by the testimony to where this has been an issue. Furthermore, just because a dog rescue shows up as a vendor does not mean they're going to bring animals onto the property. A lot of times they have literature, they have promotional events. But again, the owner of the dog that bites a person is liable. Let me also mention that, and I don't want to place any blame or fault, but I just want to read you the language of the statute. Any negligence on the part of the person bitten, that is the proximate cause of the biting incident, reduces the liability of the owner. We heard testimony that there was a bend down and go in there with it. We heard testimony that the officer didn't necessarily see. This is not the proper form to be adjudicating this matter. You know, maybe in a civil trial court whereby there's comparative negligence standards and a full fact-finding mission whereby we can compare all the facts and evidence to the record compared to 76704. That's understandable. However, code is not equipped to be able to handle this process with it. Again, Cocoa Market remains community-centered, supports small businesses, and promotes accessibility and wellness. There's about 60 to 70 local businesses that depend on this for the economic vitality and the continued cultural improvements of this wonderful city. It's in a central place. It adheres to a lot of different types of community members who all enjoy for the singular purpose of having a cultural event that's within the downtown that's operated without issue for over four years. Going back to the code sections with it, which is where the crux of the argument is today. We are here before code enforcement, and we have alerted a lot of great arguments as it pertains to personal injury and contract, and I have the utmost respect for the city and its processes and its procedures. However, the specific violations which were noticed on a property where the incident didn't occur was under 101.32. What does 101.32 state? No person shall use any portion of a park, recreation, or municipal beach site for the purpose of conducting a special event unless a special event permit has been obtained. We heard testimony from the city today that a permit was obtained. Now, to the extent the city suggests certain conditions of the permit were not strictly adhered to, it does not transform a permitted event into an unpermitted event under 101.32. Again, the mandate of this reviewing body, this special magistrate, is to look to the cited violations 101.32 to see if the facts match the issue at hand. 101.32B states no person shall... Let me inquire us to that because I think that's an interesting argument. So you're saying if one type of event is permitted and another type of event occurs, it's still a permitted event? It's not another type of event, but I do have, which I'll submit for the record, is a special event permit approval with it. So the exact language states no person shall use without a permit. Now, if a permit wasn't obtained, that would be a different fact pattern. We have a permit, which I'll submit into evidence, that shows a permit was obtained. What the argument I heard is based on contract, whereby there's defined specific procedures that were undertaken to enforce penalties, namely a suspension of three months, which that remedies in contract, not in code. We're trying to fit a square peg into a round circle by being before code before you today. If they wanted to pursue recourse, it should either be in personal injury or by virtue of contract. This code provision does not get it there. Additionally, I'd like to get to the animal regulations section as well with it. 101.27? Yes, 101.27. What that specifically says, no person shall bring into, have, or keep in any park, any dog, animal without a specific permit from Parks and Rec with it. We heard testimony that the dog rescue brought and kept. We heard testimony that the handler brought and kept under their control and possession. We have 767.04, which says the owner of a dog is liable. Again, I understand the city's position. This is just not the proper procedural remedy to go about this issue with it. My client, Coco Yogi, Ms. Corey Heyman, was not the person who brought the dog into the park. Furthermore, animal rescues does not necessarily necessitate an animal being brought. I have been to a plethora of events whereby animal rescues post up, have their literature dispersed, and then someone goes at a later time to be able to go and do that. The onus is on the animal rescue to obtain a permit. What would happen if someone walked into the park without it? Would then the city under code cite the event producer for bringing a dog into it when it was a condition of a contract that should have been pursued under a contractual remedy with it? Again, we have a contract theory and a personal injury theory. I heard no mention of 10132-10127, the language there, and how it applies to the facts at hand with it. Again, the plain language of the ordinance is the individual who brings into or keeps the animal within the premises. My client did neither of those. We are in a code enforcement setting whereby 162 controls, and those are the lens in which I'm operating under with it. Finally, I'd like to get to the irreparable and irreversible because I've done a lot of case law research on this. I deal in code routinely. I've dealt with certain irreversible standards with it. This does not fit the bill. All the case law I've found states that irreversible is determined when there's no adequate remedy at law. For everyone, an adequate remedy of law means you can't be compensated by monetary damages. We specifically have 76704 that provides an adequate remedy of law to provide compensation pursuant to that section. The cases I have here, you know, SR Inc. vs. Clemente, sinking injunctive relief for extension soil and groundwater pollution, toxic sludge that was continuing. Department of Environmental Regulation vs. CASIC with it. Further discharge needed to be prevented and injunctive relief was granted because otherwise it would be a continuing obligation. Another one pertained as to life safety for a building roof for doing unpermitted work that there was danger of collapse of for an area within Ware vs. Polk City with it. I have never heard irreversible and irreparable being applied to a personal injury claim whereby 76704 provides an adequate remedy of law in order to enhance it based on the perceived damages that may have occurred with it. Finally, I'd like to bring to your attention the language of 16209 with it in determining the amount of the fine. This body must take into account the gravity of the violation, actions taken by the violator, and any previous violations. We heard there was no previous violations. There's no continuing ongoing activity that needs to be remedied would be in the standard code compliance department with it. And the gravity of the violation goes against the dog owner with it. Again, I'm not trying to place blame or do that. I'm trying to fit within the confines of the code as to what's required to make sure there's adequate notice of process and procedures that are properly going into, and so we're not litigating a contract or a personal injury case in code enforcement. Because I'm not saying that there's no recourse at play with it. I'm saying this body is not adequately handled under its statutory authority and regulatory regime to be able to adjudicate this base based on 10127 and 10131 with it. Again, I'd like to impart that my client and I have the utmost solace and we feel bad for what happened with it. But feeling bad does not equate to legal liability. We have a regime in there for reasons because we look to the code, we look to the language, we apply the facts, and then we make a determination based off there. As it pertains to irreparable and irreversible, there is no way that anything would last if it was taken to another level. I have not found one case where a personal injury claim was awarded irreparable and irreversible under a code enforcement standard. I have just not seen it. Subject to there, then you go to 10132 is inapplicable because a permit was not obtained. 10127 does not apply because my client did not bring, own, or control the dog, which is there. Again, this incident is not properly before this board. I respect the city. I respect its processes. We have implemented new processes, and that's what I would like to finalize my discussion with. My client takes this very, very seriously, and if you need to hear it from her, she's happy to come up. Otherwise, I will speak on her behalf with it as well. But the imprint of the situation has left a mark. She's already been suspended for a duration, which was the contractual remedy, which was adhered to, and then applying a separate remedy. I'm not going to say double jeopardy because it's criminal context, but you get where I'm going with it. It's essentially enforcing double damages for the single incident with it. That was the remedy imposed, and that left a great effect. It also left a hole in the city of Delray community because they didn't have that cultural, arts, and entertainment hub necessary to be able to promote the type of community that is going on, an artistic one, an endeavoring one, a creative one with it. She went ahead and started creating signs. You know, these signs will be posted. Any animal brought into the event must comply with all applicable regulations. This will account for the fact maybe a pedestrian brings in their dog. I brought up the example previously, what will happen if a pedestrian's dogs bite once? Are they going to go after Coco Yogi at that point with it? I don't think that's the proper forum. Again, animal rescues don't always bring dogs, and the remedies and contract or personal injury, which may go along that part with it too. She wants to maintain communications with the city. I want to maintain communications with the city. I never want to see this happen again. She never wants to see this happen again. And we're going to implement processes and procedures that do that. Again, it's a very unfortunate situation, and I'm not trying to divert blame or liability anywhere else than it should be. All I'm saying is we have a violation under 101.32, 101.27. I've read you the language. We have statutory authority under 767.04, which hasn't been pursued, but just this isn't the correct body to do it. And furthermore, irreparable and irreversible, I just don't fathom how that could possibly be implemented, considering the case law research I've done to date. So that's my case in chief. I'm happy to answer any additional questions, but I appreciate everyone's time. Thank you. So we are not here under negligence cause of action because I recognize this is not the proper forum for that. We are here for two violations of the city's code of ordinances, 101.32 and 101.27. So Mr. McAlan did a good job of reciting 101.32, subsection B, but he didn't read the whole thing, so I'm going to read the whole thing. No person shall use any portion of any park, recreation, or municipal beach site for the purpose of conducting a special event unless a special event permit has been obtained in accordance with the city's adopted special event policy, which may be amended from time to time. The special event policy is clear that in order to obtain a valid permit, you would also need to obtain the temporary permit to allow the animals. So I'm not really sure if Mr. McAlan is saying that, you know, this H3, the vendor that was set up and the testimony was that there was tents and more than four or five dogs present, if Ms. Heyman didn't know that that vendor was there. I mean, the testimony seems pretty clear, and there was nothing presented to the contrary, that this was, you know, an unprimited vendor. Somebody just showed up at the cocoa market and set up a tent. So I don't think he's arguing that, and from the evidence before you, I don't think that that's consistent. The other basis for the city bringing this matter before you is a violation of 101.27, which states very clearly that in order to have animals on the city's property, you have to have a security permit from the director of parks and recreation. The testimony is clear. That was not done. And, you know, for somebody who's been conducting this market since 2022, who is a good faith actor of over four years, she should know the process. She completed an application. Apparently, she's done this application more than once. The application is abundantly clear that to have the animals on the property, you needed to secure an additional permit. So while the injury suffered by this child is devastating, it was described as her lip looked like a cleft lip, that's not why we're here today. We're here because Ms. Heyman made a choice, and the choice was to violate the application that she submitted, to violate the city's grant of a special permit to have this event on her property, and authorize a vendor on the site that was not permitted. That's why we're here. The additional facts are here to show the gravity of the violation and to understand why the city is going to be seeking the maximum fine. But we're not here under a negligence cause of action. I don't need to prove whose dog it was. What I need to prove is that she had a permit from the city. The permit did not allow her to have animals on the city's property, and she did. And I think the evidence is overwhelming that that's exactly what happened here and that she should have a fine. You know, I'm actually surprised that the gravity of this is not really understood. So while it's great that she's going to have signs that she can't have dogs, the city manager actually told her that she can no longer have dogs at her events for this very reason. Because she's violated the city's trust. She's violated the public's trust. And so, again, we are in the right forum. We're in the right location. The violation is for two separate sections of the city's code of ordinances. And the reason why it's irreparable and irreversible is because we can't undo it. I can't give her a period to come into compliance. This happened. It was a severe event. It was an egregious event that never should have happened. And had she followed the protocols of the city and the permissions of the city, we would not be sitting here. But be that as it may, I can't undo it and she can't undo it. That's why it's irreparable and irreversible. So the city is seeking the maximum fine. I'll give you the last word, sir. Yeah, certainly. And just I've gone through the case law. Case law is a defined term of art with it. It's not a feeling. You know, case law specifically provides. It applies to environmental issues with it. Life safety, that's continuing ongoing. And when there's no adequate remedy at law, I'm happy to submit the memorandum into the evidence stating irreparable and irreversible is when there's no adequate remedy at law. There's an adequate remedy at law right here with it. Did you have any objection to the submission of this indefinite? I've never seen it. Yeah, I didn't see that one either. I mean, aside from it being highlighted, it looks like it's just notes. So no objection. All right. So admit. Go ahead, sir. Yeah. And going back to the thing, I did not leave that out purposefully. And again, the statute states no person shall bring into the park into that. We've heard testimony that the animal rescue brought the dog into the park. We've heard testimony that the handler kept the dog who's on behalf of the animal rescue with it. The mandate here is to be able to review the code language and see if it applies with it. My client was not the person who brought it into the event. Additionally, no person shall conduct a special event unless they have a permit. And it says, unless a special event permit hasn't been obtained with the court and to adopt a special event policy, I'll submit the special event into evidence as well with it. Now, the condition of the special event. I think it's already in evidence. Okay. And then the condition of the special event is enforced through contract remedy. And they've taken enforcement action to be able to suspend it for three months, which is well within their right. My client understands the gravity of the violation. Let me inquire about one thing. Are you arguing that if there is a civil remedy for anything, that it can never be irreparable or irreversible? If there's an adequate remedy at law, it can't be irreparable or irreversible, which means monetary damages. Okay. Well, that's a relatively novel argument to me, but okay. It's what the case law provides. It's what the environmental sludge provides. Look, if someone was draining out things into the city's sea drain and it was continuing, it'd be fine. This is not a continuing obligation. This occurred on one day. It did not occur over the course of multiple days. There is an injunctive relief with it. It occurred over the course of one day with it. And the applicable sections, like I mentioned, aren't even provided with because, again, there was a special event permit and the dog that was brought into the rescue was brought by the animal rescue with it. I'm sorry. Did you have anything further? The only way the damages get kicked up to $15,000 per violation is irreparable, irreversible. That is not supported. It's a one-day event. It's not a continuing obligation with it, and the issue has been remedied with it. Additionally, the cited provisions are not applicable. My client obtained a permit. My client was not the one who brought the dog onto the property. They have remedies in their revocable license agreement. They use the remedies in their revocable license agreement. They're now trying to go after it again by these provisions, which were only mentioned on rebuttal with it and weren't provided in the case in chief. We went through a revocable license agreement, which has relevant provisions, where two parties agreed to contractual provisions that were enforced. We're now supplanting it with tangential code violations, and this sets not a great precedent. What's going to happen when someone else gets bitten on the street by someone else with it there? Are they going to go after every single person? Is that going to be the new system of how it does it? Or are we going to adhere to 76704, where proper remedies and monetary damages are provided at law based on a factual finding, based on contributory negligence, based on the owner of a dog bringing it into the property? This is not the proper party that should be standing before you today. I don't disagree in terms of we could communicate better. We could work with the city a bit better with it. That's fine. But pursuant to the code and the provisions, the party who's before you today is not the proper individual who should be here. And the remedies that are available were already enforced. Okay. So I agree that I do not find negligence. I also agree that I am not going to assess the damages associated with this. Those are civil penalties, and they belong in a court, not here. As a code enforcement special magistrate, I have a pretty limited role. I take a look at the code sections. I listen to the facts, and I make determination whether the code sections constitute a violation of the facts. And that is the facts constituting a violation of the code sections. And that is the sole job that I have up here. And based on the testimony and evidence that I've heard today, this is the finding that I would make. I find the notice is good and sufficient, and I find that the respondent did violate code sections 101.27 AB and 101.32. I make further finding that said violation is irreparable and irreversible in nature. I believe the gravity of this is significant, and therefore I do assess the largest fine of $15,000. Thank you. I'm just going to go into the case box, because that was a minute now. Case number two, code 26-000-480. The owners' names are Stephen and Patricia Sullivan. The property address is 600 Lawrence Road. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for City of Derry Beach. This property, 600 Lawrence Road, was issued a notice of violation on January 5, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail, sent on January 13, 2026. Oh, you're doing old. Thank you. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on February 27, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in this case. I've had had contact with the owners of property. This property was cited for 4.6.11 outside storage of pavers, which were later removed. And it was cited for 2.4.13 subsection B for permits for an addition that was built without permits. As of March 16, 2026, the violation still exists. The property has not came in compliance. I have eight photos of the property that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1 shows the pavers in the front driveway. The second exhibit shows the addition, which was built on the south side of property without permits applied or obtained. Exhibit 3, on February 27, I posted on property. Exhibit 4 is affidavit of posting, which was posted on February 27, 2026. Exhibit 5 is the affidavit of noncompliance, February 27, 2026. Exhibit 6 was my last re-inspection, March 16, 2026. Exhibit 7 is showing the photo of the complete house, the addition, and the front of property. And Exhibit 8 shows where the pavers were removed and showing the front of the property. These are my eight photos I would like to introduce. At this time, the city would like to introduce the eight photos into evidence. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Seeing no one admitted without objection. The city is asking for 30 days to apply and obtain permit, approve permit, or $100 daily fine until the compliance is achieved. Do you believe that's a reasonable amount of time to accomplish this? Yes. One more time, is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? In case 26000480, I make the following findings of fact and law I find notices official from the property in violation of 2.4.313B. And the outside storage is not an issue anymore? The outside storage is in compliance. It's just for the permits to apply and obtain approval. So 2.4.13B. The respondent has 30 days to come into compliance. They're a fine of up to $100 per day, may I assume. Thank you. Case number 3, code 26-000487. The owner's name is Thomas J. Burke. Property address is 202 Southeast 4th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Latoya Thompson. Good afternoon. We previously spoke with Mr. Schmidt on the case who is here. I'm not sure if his notice and motion to extend made the file, but I will present it. The city has no objection to a 60-day reset. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? David Schmidt, representing the property owner, Thomas Burke. Mr. Schmidt, the city is representing that you're asking for a 60-day continuance? Correct. And the city has no objection? Correct. Irvine continued, 60-day. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 4, code 26-000496. The owner's name is Ashley Hugh and Lee Wren. Property address is 2379 Zeter Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Rubison DeJaden. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate, Mr. Wagner. My name is Code Enforcement Officer Rubison DeJaden. I am here regarding Code Enforcement Violation 26-00496, located at 2379 Zeter Avenue, where I observe a driveway alteration conducted without the required building permit, which is a violation of Land Development Regulation 2.4.13, subsection B, which states that a building permit is required for all items set for and the Florida Building Code and Chapter 7 of the city's land development regulations. On December 17, 2025, a warning notice was issued for the unpermitted alteration. The property owner was given five days to apply for the required building permit or revert the driveway to its original configuration. A follow-up inspection was conducted on January 7, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A permit application was not submitted, and the alteration still exists. A notice of violation was issued on January 7, 2026. This notice was mailed first class and certified. On January 16, a building permit was submitted but remains an approval as the property owner has not addressed the review comments. A formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mailed on January 25, 2026. I spoke with the property owner on February 17, 2026 and informed her to contact the building department regarding the permit that was submitted as there are comments that need to be addressed. Next, the notice of hearing was posted to the property on February 26, 2026, and a re-inspection of the property was conducted. As of today, March 19, the violation still exists. I have nine photographs of the property I would like to introduce this exhibit as evidence. So thank you. Before we go to your photos, I just want to clarify. Compliance would happen to obtain an approved permit, correct? Correct. Thank you. This is the exhibit number one. A photo was taken on December 17, 2025. That's just showing the alteration of the pavers. Exhibit number two, that just shows you on different angles of the property. This photo was taken on the street and the public view on January 6, 2026. This is just showing you exhibit number three that was taken on the public view on different angles on January 13, 2026. Exhibit number four, once again, this was taken on February 9, 2026. That's just showing you the alteration of the pavers on the different angles. Exhibit number five, that was the posting I conducted. I posted the property on February 26, 2026. Exhibit number six, just showing you that I posted the affidavit of posting. Exhibit seven, just showing you that on February 17, 2026, this is just showing you different angles of the pavers. Exhibit number eight, just showing you on March 18, 2026, this is just different angles of the violation. Exhibit number nine, just showing you the non-compliance affidavit. So that's just reflecting that this hasn't come into compliance. Correct. With the permit, correct. Correct. At this time, this would like to introduce the nine photographs into evidence. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? D. Renn. D. Renn, do you have any objection to the photographs or evidence that the city just showed? Oh, it's good. So admit it. Does the city have anything further? No. Ma'am? I just, I'm working on the permit. I just need more time. How much time do you need? Can I give me 60 days? What is your recommendation? The city suggests that the property owner be granted 30 days to come into compliance or a daily fine of $100 be imposed for non-compliance? Ma'am, why do you need 60 days? The city's offering 30 days. You asked for 60. I just want to understand why you need 60 days. But I don't know how long it will take. I didn't, I mean, it's the first time I do this. So I want to get more days and I can finish the permit. All right. I'm going to give you the 60 days, but even they go pretty quick. So you do have to work on this and try and get it done as quickly as you can, okay? Yes. Thank you. All right. And 26000496, I'm going to make the following findings of fact on life. I notice this efficient. I find the property in violation of 2.4.13B. I want the respondent to come into compliance by getting an approved building permit within 60 days or a fine of up to $100 per day, ma'am. Good luck, ma'am. Thank you. Case number 5, code 26-000519. The owner's name is WG Construction and Fencing, LLC. The registered agent is Watugao Yanfriani. And the property address is 349 Southwest 11th Avenue. 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 349 Southwest 11th Avenue and case number code 26-000510. The property was issued a notice of violation on January 15th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail and posted to City Hall on January 20th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on January 20th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of compliance, noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for work without permit for installing a fence on the property without approved issued permits. As of March 19th, 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 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. The property owner did apply for a permit January 23rd, 2026. But as of today, he submitted new documents for liability insurance and workers' compensation, which were submitted March 18th, 2026. And that was the last update pertaining to the permit. Do you believe 30 days is enough time to bring this into compliance? Yes. Exhibit 1 is an old photo from July 24th, 25th, just showing the back of the property in the alleyway to show that it was a chain-link fence. Well, that's not the property. That is the property. No. No, that's not my property. That's the property. No, this one. This is an old photo of the chain-link fence from previously. This is not my property. The one I purchased is, there's not one. Okay. My property is, the building is a white building. Move along. It's a white building. I don't have that. Exhibit 2, December 31st, 2025, is the fence that's put up now. Are you talking about the back one? Yes, this is the back of the property. The back. Okay, but it showed me the other one is not a property. The first one. That's an old photo of, this was a previous photo taken of the property before you purchased it. Before you purchased it. Yes. Okay. I'm just showing the gate that was there previously. All right. That's it. Sir, just let him finish, and then you can tell me anything you want me to know. Exhibit 2, taken December 31st, 2025, shows the new wooden fence that's in place of the old chain-link fence. Exhibit 3, taken December 31st, 2025, is the front of the property that shows the wooden fence to the left. Yeah, I see. To the right of the property, right here. Exhibit 4, taken January 20th, 2026, is the posting of notice of violation. Exhibit 5 is the affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 6 was a re-inspection, taken February 23rd, 2026, showing that the fence still remains. Exhibit 7 is a photo of the front of the property, taken February 23rd, 2026, that shows the wooden fence still remains in the front of the property. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit of compliance, noncompliance, showing that the property is still noncompliant. Exhibit 9 is a re-inspection, prior to hearing, taken March 16th, 2026, that shows the wooden fence still remains. And Exhibit 10, taken March 16th, 2026, shows the front of the property with the wooden fence that still remains. So to be clear, we're here for the wooden fence, correct? Yes, the wooden fence. At this time, I'd like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence. Sir, do you have an objection to the photographs? Well, from the first one, it wasn't my business. I'm a little confused, but now I understand this is my house. The first one, it wasn't my house. All right, I'm going to admit the photograph. So the city is basically arguing that you need a permit for the fence. Yeah, I understand the permit because I would apply for it, but I just need time to, you know. All right, the city has offered you 30 days. Well, I don't think 30 days is going to be enough because the city all himself takes a lot of time. How much time do you need? Well, I need 60 days because you've got to give the city more time because me, if the city gives me a permit tomorrow, I'm okay. But the city always takes time. That's the problem. You know, I mean, I'm not actually 60 days for me, but I need more time for me and the city himself. All right, I'm apparently in a generous mood today. In case 26-0-0-0-5-1-0, I make the following findings of fact in the life. If I know this is sufficient, I find the problem in violation of 2.4.13B, which is the permit you need for the fence. I'll give you 60 days to obtain it or a fine of $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Case number six, code 26-0-0-0-5-1-1. The owner's name is Limalia Jean Jacks. The property address is 201 Southwest Ninth Circle. 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 201 Southwest Ninth Circle and code and case number code 26-0-0-0-5-1-1. The property was issued a notice of violation on January 15th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on January 20th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on January 20th, 2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of compliance, non-compliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for work without permit for installing fence on property without approved issued permits. As of March 19th, 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 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. The property owner did apply for a permit January 21st, 2026. As of today, she submitted the request for a landscape permit. I thought this was a fence. Yeah, it was a fence, but she has to get hedges because the fence, I show the photos on the side of the property, faces the road, so she has to have hedges. So, exhibit 1 is an old photo from October 2nd, 2025, that shows the front of the property of the fence that was there previously. Exhibit 2, taken January 13th, 2026, shows the new fence that was installed. Exhibit 3, taken January 13th, 2026, shows the side of the property of the fence that was installed on the side. Exhibit 4, taken January 20th, 2026, is the posting of notice of violation. Exhibit 5 is an affidavit of posting mailing. Exhibit 6 was my re-inspection, February 23rd, 2026, and shows that the fence still remains. Exhibit 7, taken February 23rd, 2026, is my re-inspection, and shows the fence remains on the side of the property. Exhibit 8 is the first affidavit of compliance, non-compliance, that shows that the property is still not in compliance. Exhibit 9 was my re-inspection prior to hearing, taken March 16th, 2026, that shows the fence still remains. And Exhibit 10, taken March 16th, 2026, is my re-inspection prior to hearing. That shows that the fence remains on the side. So the only step she has left is to get the approved for landscape, and then the permit is complete. That's the last step. And she already submitted, like I said, she submitted the permit March 17th, 2026. So once that approved... So the city just has to approve. Yeah, once that's approved, the permit is complete. So I believe 30 days is enough. At this time, I'd like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? My name is Jackson Jackson. Ma'am, do you have any objections to the documents? No, no objections. That objection is so admitted. The city says you've already submitted the permit. It just has to be issued. They want to give you 30 days to do that. Does that work for you? So can I request an additional 60 days? I'm active duty military. I'm actually outside of the area for assignment. I had to take time off to come here. I'll give it to you, but I don't think you're going to need it. I know. I just want to be... Because right now we're busy with what's going on in the world, so I just want to make sure that I complete it on time. In case 20... Yeah, I suspect you are. In case 26-000-511, I make the following findings of fact in life. I notice sufficient find the property in violation of 2.4.13b, which is the permit for the fence. Respondent has 60 days to come into compliance or a fine up to $100 per day. May issue an best of luck, I wish you. Thank you. Case number seven. Code 26-000-537. The owners are Carlos E. Vives Gomez, First Trust of Herlinda. Carlos E. Vives Gomez as the Treasurer. And also Lucia V. Gomez, Treasurer. Maria Gomez as the Financial Asset Services Person. The property address is 15764 Southwest 8th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. My name is Code Officer LaToya Thompson with the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding a renovation slash alteration work done without permit violation. On October 6th, 2025, code enforcement was informed by development services regarding alleged alteration renovation to a property located at 15764 Southwest 8th Avenue, Delray Beach. The complaint alleged that the property extended the upstairs balcony and performed interior alteration work without the required permits. After further investigation via realtor.com slash Zillow, the property was found in violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulation Code Section 2.4.13, Subsection B, Building Permits. I have nine photos to present as evidence. A magistrate notice was created and issued, created on January 27th, issued on February 12th, 2026. Magistrate violation was mailed first class certified mailed and posted to City Hall on February 13th, 2026. Compliance was required March 10th, 2026. The violation was posted to the property February 12th, 2026. On March 6th, I conducted a re-inspection via EPL and observed two permits was applied for and issued. However, the engineering letter for the deck and other renovation permits were still pending. I've had contact with the property's representative who's here today regarding the engineering letter and other permits that need to be obtained to bring the property into compliance. The City is suggesting 30 days to obtain an approved issue permit or $100 daily fine be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved. I just have a couple questions for you before we get into the photographs. Yes, ma'am. How are you doing today? Doing all right. All right. So, Ms. Thompson, are you previously familiar with the property located at 1576 Southwest 8th Avenue? Yes, ma'am. And without going into detail as to what, if any, previous violations were there, how do you have the opportunity to go into the property before the alleged renovations that require the permits occur? Yes, I have. It was to, at the previous time, not this owner, another owner allowed me into the house to take pictures of another property that was in violation for a pool. Okay. So, you're just familiar with the layout and what the property looked like? Yes, ma'am. And before we get into the photos, did the property look like what we're about to see at all? Absolutely not. And as a part of your investigation, did you go onto any types of websites to locate any photographs? I did. And these pictures that we're about to see, are these pictures that you obtained through a self-reported real estate website? Yes, realtor.com. And in your training and experience, is this an accurate location for a property owner who might be potentially listing a property? Yes, ma'am. And when you spoke, I believe you said you previously spoke to the respondent, did they confirm that this property had been listed and those photographs were accurate? Yes, ma'am. And when you went to the property, could you see yourself from outside what the deck looked like? Yes, ma'am. All right. Now, we're going to go through the photographs. I'm now showing you photograph one. You can go through them and just explain what they are. Okay. Exhibit one will show that the deck right there, as you can see, has been installed. Now, from my previous time there, the deck is way bigger than what it is. What it was? What it was. Okay. Exhibit two is just another picture that was taken from Realtor of the wood and the deck, as you can see. Exhibit three is another picture of the deck. Exhibit four is a picture of one of the bathrooms. That had been renovated? That has been renovated, yes, ma'am. And exhibit five is another picture that looks like the master bathroom that has been renovated. And I believe you said you were in this house before. Yes, ma'am. It has never looked like that. Okay. Exhibit six? Exhibit six is the downstairs area, living area, which once upon a time, I believe, had carpet. The stairs wasn't like that as well. Exhibit seven? Exhibit seven is the posting of the hearing that I noticed. This is the affidavit of posting that was done on the 12th of February. This is the noncompliance on the 6th of March. Compliance with not obtaining the building permits. Yeah, with the building permits. Yes, ma'am. At this time, the city would like to introduce the nine exhibits into evidence. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? Good afternoon. My name is Yeslyn, last name Iglesias. And your relation to the property? I am the administrator for the trust. Do you have any objection to the photographs? No, sir. I've been in communication with the city. We are working right now with the engineer. One second. I promise I'll let you talk. Let me just, for the record, I'm going to accept an evidence. The evidence here, you have a photo submitted, exhibits one through nine. Does the city have anything further? Yeah. Well, we don't have any further testimony, but we do have Ms. Madison Brown here. If the magistrate has any questions regarding the status of the permit. I really don't. You said 30 days? Yes. 30 days is enough time for you. I need at least 60, if possible. What's the status? The applicant is awaiting some documentation from an engineer. And 30 days may work. 60 will give her time to get what she needs from the engineer and to get the permit issued and complete the required inspections. 60 days it is. All right. In case 26-000-537, I make the following findings of fact and law. I find notice sufficient. I find the property in violation of 2.4.13B, which is needed permits for the renovations. Respondent, including the deck. Respondent has 60 days to come into compliance. I find up to $100 per day, Ms. Thank you. Case number 8. Code 26-000-551. The owner's name is Pot and Pans 1, LLC. Property address is 117 Southwest 4th Street. And the code officer on the case is LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. There is a representative counsel regarding Pot and Pans 1, LLC. I've spoken to counsel. He just has a request for a 30-day extension. I told him he can ask the magistrate before we proceed. Do you want to make your appearance? My name is Willard Robertson. I'm an attorney in Florida. I'm here in representative capacity for Pot and Pans 1, LLC. The property owner at 117 Southwest 4th. And you wanted to make a request? Actually, in light of your generous nature today, we would request a 60-day continuance. This is completely out of our hands at this juncture. And I think Ms. Thompson will acknowledge that we have done everything we can up to this point. And we're simply waiting on response from the office. Does the city have any objection? Well, we discussed 30, but I will – because he's not asking for a finding of violation in 60 days or fines would accrue. He's asking for 30 days to reset the whole hearing. If he's comfortable with 60 days or a fine of $100 a day would accrue after 60 days, then the city is fine with that. But if he's just asking just to reset the case – I'll give you your choice. I'll give you either a 30-day reset or I'll give you 60 days to come into compliance. 60-day compliance would be grateful for, sir. All right. We're all agreement 60 days or $100 per day after? Yeah. All right. Sold. Thank you very much. Thank you. Case number 9, Code 26-000562. The owner's name is Yero R. Lances and Dalia Albertina Luna. Property address is 640 Southwest 20th Court. And the code officer on the case is Joseph Oliva. Good afternoon. This is Code Case 26-000562. Joseph Oliva, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Delray Beach. This property, 640 Southwest 20th Court, was issued a notice of violation on 2-5-2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on 2-9-2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on 2-9-2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the daughter of the owners of the property. And she called me and she asked me what they needed to do. And I said just to obtain an issued building permit. The property was cited for 2.4.13B building permits. And she said, okay, and that was it. I haven't heard anything since. But as of 3-18, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 10 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce as evidence. The City is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the City is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved. Would you like to go through the photographs? Yes. So the first one was just the property appraiser showing the owners of the property. Exhibit 2 is the notice of violation. Exhibit 3 is showing that on February 4th, when I spotted the fence going up. Indeed you did. Yes. Exhibit 4 is another just photo of the wood slots. Exhibit 5 is just part of the fence where it basically went out to the street also. This is the affidavit of the posting of the property. And the posting is right there on the property, right in the center. And then this is the affidavit of noncompliance. I went back out on March 12th, and the fence is still up with no permit. But they haven't even applied for a permit. And that's it. So we're asking now to introduce the 10 exhibitors into evidence. And this photograph is taken throughout and after the compliance date, correct? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Without objection, so admitted. You think 30 days is enough time here? Yes. Unless you're feeling generous and you want to give 60 days. Well, if they were here to ask me, I might. But they're not. But you think this should be doable in 30 days? Yes. All right. In case 26000562, I make the following findings of fact in life. I find notices efficient. Find the property in violation 2.4.13B. Affiliate to obtain a permit for building that fence. 30 days to come into compliance. Fine of $100 per day. Thank you. Case number 10, code 26-000563. The owner's name is Stephanie Johnston. Property address is 3000 Carl Bolter Drive. And the code officer on the case is Randall Strawn. Good afternoon. Here regarding 3000 Carl Bolter Drive. At least it's not a fence. That's all I'm saying. Say it again? As long as it's not a fence. Oh, no. All right. No, not this time. This is a landscape maintenance for case number 26563. My name is Randall Strawn, code officer for the city of Dittery Beach, Florida. The violation was issued on February 5, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and sent on February 9, 2026. The owner did not sign the certified mail. In addition, both the city and city hall was posted at city hall in the property on February 9, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner at this time. The property was cited for 4.6 point, subsection 1, and subsection, subsection I, and subsection 1 for landscape maintenance. As of March 15, 2026, the property has not come to compliance. I have six photographs of the property. Of this case, I'd like to introduce them to evidence. Let's go through the photographs. All right. This is exhibit 1. This depicts, this was taken on February 4, 2026. This is on Carl Boatier Drive, parallel to the property. Showed the overgrown landscape from the exterior. It's extremely high. Yes, it is. Is it exhibit 2? Exhibit 2 is same picture on Carl Boatier Drive. Different angle. Exhibit 3 is the noncompliance affidavit form. Six. Exhibit 6 also is another angle of the property, showing it's overgrown. You can see it from the street also, parallel to the street. Do you have any contact with anyone there? From the exterior of the house. No contact with the property owner at this time. So. At this time, I'd like to introduce the six photographs of the evidence. Without objection, so admit it. Admit it. What's the city seeking here? City seeking not 60 days, but 10 days. For them to come to compliance. If they do not come to compliance, ask them for $50 a day until compliance is achieved. What is compliance here? Mowing that? What is compliance here? Is it mowing that? Yeah. Mowing that. That's trimming the back, cutting the back from the street. That's just parallel to the opposite. You know, not that I'm talking 60 days, but do you think 10 days is enough time to do that? Five days can be enough time to do it today and get it out of the way. But I'm saying 10 days, though. Okay. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? All right. In case 2600563, I make the following findings of fact. And while I find notice is sufficient, I find the property in violation of 4.6.1611. Landscaping is in disrepair. Respondent has 10 days to come to compliance or a fine of, what were you looking for, $100? $50. $50 per day. Thank you. Case number 11, code 26-000567. The honor's name is Jamina Masson. Property address is 2941 Dolphin Drive. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer with the city of Derry Beach. This property, 2941 Dolphin Drive, was issued a notice of violation on February 9th, 2026. Service will accomplish by certified mailed and regular mailed on February the 13th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on February the 13th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached. In this case, I've had had contact with the female resident on the day of posting, February 13th, 2026. This property was cited for 4.6.11 outside storage of material to the front of property. And as well, this property was cited for 4.6.16 subsection E, subsection 3, landscape vehicle encroachment, vehicle park over the landscape area. As of my last re-inspection on March 9th, look at my photo. The first photo, February 9th, 2026, showing outside storage, front driveway, numerous items, buckets. This is the second photo on March 9th, 2026. It was taken in Exhibit 2, tires, batteries, and miscellaneous items, front of property, driveway. Exhibit 3 was the day of posting, February 13th, 2026. Exhibit 4, affidavit of posting, February the 13th, 2026. Exhibit 5, on March 9th, re-inspected property, violation still exists. March 9th, the vehicle encroachment, the vehicle is still there. Exhibit 7 is non-compliance, March 9th, 2026. So my last re-inspection was March 9th, 2026. And the property has not came in compliance. The city acts 7 days for the outside storage to be removed and the vehicle to be removed off the lawn or $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. I'm sorry, tell me that to me one more time. Tell me your request one more time. $50, 7 days to come in compliance or $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. So it's just that stuff in the vehicle? Correct. Well, the vehicle, no. The vehicle is for landscaping, encroachment. And then outside storage is for the items in the front. I just wanted to make sure it's clear that the vehicle is not two separate ones. Correct. So the vehicle is just the landscape encroachment. Correct. And the outside storage is all the items in front of the property. Okay. Ma'am, can you tell me your name? Yes, my name is Telly Mason. I'm the daughter of Jabita, they said. Did you say Telly Mason? Yeah, T-E-L-L-Y. Does your mother know you're here on her behalf? Yes, she sent me. Yeah. Do you understand what the city is saying here? Yes, I understand. We're just requesting 30 days. The truck, we don't, it's my father's truck and a lot of the stuff outside is my father's. He got locked up. And so we're trying to remove his stuff and just trying to figure out where we could get all these things. So we're doing our best. We did us. We tried to hire somebody to come remove the junk. They canceled on us. So we're trying to find another person. We called a few mechanics to come out to help us figure out what's going on with the truck so we can move it. Again, canceled on us. So we are trying. So we're asking for 30 days so we can get it all removed and done and trashed or whatever. What's the city's position? The city's fine with 30 days. I'll give you the 30 days, but 30 days moves pretty quickly. Yes, it does. All right, 26-0-0-0-5-6-7 to make the following findings of fact and life. I noticed this official to find the property in violation of the listed code sections responded as 30 days to come to compliance or a fine of $50 per day mission. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 12, code 26-0-0-0-5-7-5. The owner's name is Mikkel A. Carey and Gregory Dupreville. The property address is 2140 Southwest 14th Street. And the code officer on the case is Joseph Oliva. Good afternoon. Joseph Oliva, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. This property, 2140 Southwest 14th Street, was issued a notice of violation on 2-13-2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent out on 2-18-2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on 2-18-2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to the case. I have not, but now I have been in contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for 7.8.3 maintenance of buildings required. There was a lot of, as we go through the pictures, I'll show you. But as of 3-18, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 16 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce as evidence. 16, huh? 16, yeah. So this is actually the owner from the property appraiser. This is a notice of violation that was sent to them. This is some pipe work that is leaking, and the next one shows the bucket. There's a bucket underneath, and I guess it's been leaking for a long time, so they just finally put a bucket there to collect the water. These were taken on February 12th. So can I just ask you a quick question about these photographs? If you could just explain how you got access. All right. I got access because one of the tenants there invited me in, and he's here today to say a few words also. Okay. Thank you. This is a picture of the stove and the microwave that don't work. I don't know if there's electric going into it or not, but it doesn't work. Some open wiring. This is a closed door, but as you can see, it's not airtight or leak-proof. This was on February 13th. It was the posting of the notice of violation to the property. This is the posting, the affidavit of posting. And then I went back out on March 13th to see if any of the violations were cured, and it's still leaky pipes. The stove and the microwave are still not working. The door is still not airtight or weather-proof. They also have a fence that's falling apart in the front of the property, and then one of the awnings is kind of, like, broken. Then they have – oh, this is the one that I got to get. But they have – there's a beehive that's inside that fence. Just press it again. Oh, press it again. As you can see, do you see the bees at the bottom of the – yeah. Yeah, I didn't want to get too close because there's a lot of bees there. And also, one thing I didn't mention, too, the AC unit, I was told, does it work? And when I looked at the, I guess, the thermometer thing on the wall, thermostat, it wasn't even on. So, you know, not having heat or AC is an issue, too. And I think that's it. Yeah, and this is the affidavit of noncompliance that I put in the case. Yeah. Can you tell me your name is, please? My name is Gregory Dupeville. My name is Magdardine Dupeville. And you're the – who's Michelle A. Cherry? He used to be the owner, but now I'm the owner. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents? Yes. Before the tenant moved in in that poverty, everything was working, and then – Hold on one second. I promise I'll let you tell me what you want to know. I just want to know if you object to the documents. Yes. I'm going to admit them as 1 through 60. Let me let the city finish, and then you can tell me anything you want me to know, okay? Okay. No, the city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance. If they don't come into compliance, then the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved. I'm double-checking to make – to see if they were – No, no, I'm not going to – He said to me. People don't ask who rejected for to know if he does – No? No, because before – No, can I just ask a question? Ma'am, are you understanding everything that's happening? Yes, yes, she – Okay, thank you. We're good. Thank you. Did you have another witness? We do. If you could please state your full name for the record, sir. Chance Coleman. And what is your relationship to the property located at 2140 Southwest 14th Street? I'm a tenant currently. And how long have you been there? Since sometime maybe earlier, mid-January. So recently you moved in. Yes, ma'am. And could you – are you the one who reported these issues to the Code Enforcement Department? I am, yes, ma'am. And could you just briefly describe the issues that you're having with the property? Wait one second. I just want to make sure that the property owner is paying attention? Yeah. I'm making sure everything's going smooth. That's all. Oh, with the testimony? Yeah. Okay. Okay. So if you could just – now, wait a minute. When you say you're making sure everything's going smoothly, do you need an interpreter? No, I'm just making sure we answer the question the right way. That's all. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Keep going. So you were just asking a question? Yeah. Okay. Now, could you describe the issues that you were having with the property since you moved in? The property has been in pretty major disrepair in a few different contexts since I got there, and they've gotten more frequent and more severe as I've been there. There has been major leaks of what I believe is sewage, is brown water under the sink. The electrical systems are in disrepair. The AC and heat is not working and has actually been – just the fan has been – they've come in and turned off the entire unit, and the HVAC unit outside is not functional at all. There are a number of other pests as well, in addition to bees, which Mr. Leiva took some photographs of. There are also mice and roaches that we've reported. The appliances are in, you know, not working condition, and just there are numerous things all over the house that we've complained about numerous times and have been met with quite a lot of resistance and have been told that nothing is wrong with the house and that no one is at fault for the damages. So, let's just be clear. When you moved into the house in January, were you having all of these issues from day one? Yes, ma'am. So, have these issues progressed? Yes, ma'am. To the point that you actually had to report to the code enforcement department? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Nothing further. I don't know if they have any questions for anyone, but – Do you have any questions for either your tenant or for the officer? Yes, when he first moved in, we didn't have all that problem. I think he started complaining because he was late on his payment. He used everything for excuse not to pay the rent. That's why he's up here today. So, it doesn't sound like he has any questions, but the city's done if they want to present their case. Go ahead. You can tell me anything you want me to know. Yeah, we're asking for 60 days so he could fix everything. We have a pending eviction on them, and the next hearing is in April. That's why we need 60 to 90 days in order for them to evict that property and fix all the damages they created. Are they denying you access to come fix it? Why can't you fix it with them there? If we fix it while they are in the property, they will create more damages. We have to come back again, and we have a pending eviction. I will say this as far as argument goes. The eviction or whatever separate issues they're having are separate than the code enforcement issues that we're having with the property at this time. We feel that 60 days is too long to correct these issues. So, Joe, I forgot what you said your recommendation was. I was saying 30 days or $100 a day. Especially with the bees and all of the, and it's not just this tenant, because outside when you have bees and rodents, that also affects surrounding property. So, it's definitely a health safety welfare issue as well. And this even went on for a little while, too, because Mr. Coleman called me at first with it. I went out there, I took some photos and stuff like that, and then he was saying, you know, that they were going to give him a chance to fix the problems, and then two weeks later he calls me, he goes, they're not doing anything, so can you please come out again? So, I went out again, and that's when I wrote it up. We're not involved in whatever those separate issues are, but they're definitely... I can't speak to your bigger issues, ma'am, but the condition as I see, when I can see on the property, that's not livable. I'm going to give you 30 days, and you need to fix it. You can give us 60, because by next week, we can send somebody for the bees, but for the inside and the windows, we will need more time. I'm going to give you 30 days. Case 26-000-575, I make the following findings of fact in the life. My notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of 7.8.3. I give the respondent 30 days to come into compliance, or $100 per day. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 13, this is a noncompliance of board order, an assessment of fine, code 25-000-138. The property owners are Bright Horizon, Inc., I'm sorry, Bright Horizon Investment Corp., where the registered agent is Samuel J. Cantor, and Goku, Inc., where the registered agent is Gwen Gove. Property address is 32 East Atlantic Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Connelly. Good afternoon. I spoke, I actually got a call from development services this morning. At this time, we're just seeking for this to continue with the fines and to reset this for 30 days to give them an opportunity to make the corrections. From my understanding, they're very close to making corrections. So, you know, we won't, we're not going to proceed with the lien at this time, but we'd still like the fines to continue and have a finding that they're still out of compliance. Sir, can you tell me your name? Kevin Slater. And what is your position with Bright Horizon's investment? I'm the project manager for Big Time Restaurant Group, who's the owner of one of the companies in the restaurant's facilities here. The city's asking me to reset this for 30 days. Is that acceptable to you? Yeah, we still haven't received any formal confirmation that the approval of the plans we've submitted have been accepted. We've already previously submitted them before, and we've had multiple delays with the approval process. First, they made us adjust some of the plans to that process. It's, we're waiting more than anything. It's not from lack of action. And that's why we're fine with resetting it. Yeah, I'm not going to make any findings today. I'm just going to reset this hearing for a month, and maybe there'll be some resolution at that time for, and something for me to decide. As soon as we get confirmation, we can meet the builder on site that day, so. Okay. That sounds like a good plan to make. All right, I'm going to reset this 30 days. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 14, code 25-000-160. The owner's name is Pineapple Grove Development, LLC. The registered agent is 121947, LLC. And the property address is 32 East Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer is Connelly. I'm sorry, correction, the property address is 301 Northeast 2nd Ave. And the code officer on the case is Connelly. All right, good afternoon, magistrate. On October 9, 2025, a code board found that a violation for city code section 2.4.13 subsection B for case 2025-000-160 issued by a past officer existed on the property, 301 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach. The violation is for unpermitted interior and exterior alterations to the structure within the property. The board ruled that the property had 60 days to correct all violations or receive a daily fine of $100. On January 6, 2026, magistrate order inspection was conducted and it was discovered the property had not obtained permit for the unpermitted alterations. And another re-inspection was conducted on March 18, 2026. But I have not been able to gain access to the property. As of today, March 19, 2026, the case is not in compliance. I have five new documents to submit into evidence. And the city suggests to lien the accrued fines for the amount of $9,900 and continue the daily fines until compliance is met. And so these are photos from the previous hearing. And so this is one of the photos of just the exterior with building materials outside. Here's a close-up of some of the materials used in the process. Here is a close-up, and these were all taken by the pass officer, a close-up of electrical wiring within a wall, drywall. Here is a photo of newly placed drywall within the interior of the building. Right here is a photo of plumbing work being done. And these are just to refresh. Yeah, to refresh because... Yeah. That's the board hearing, right? I'm sorry? Yeah, it was code board. Yeah, you can move if you haven't even photographed. Gotcha. Okay, yeah. Well, here's Exhibit 1. Here's the board order number or board order for October 9, 2025. And then here is the posting affidavit for the property at 301 Northeast 2nd Ave on March 9, 2026. Here is the photo of the posting at 301 Northeast 2nd Ave. And then here is the non-compliance affidavit for the case on the 18th day of March, so officially completed yesterday. And then here is Exhibit 5. Like I said, I have not been able to get access into the unit for the work done, but this is just an overall shot of the property taken yesterday. But as of the last time you checked, there's no permit? No. Last time I checked, there are many. At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits and two evidence for this hearing. Sir, can you tell me your name? Yeah. My name is Abel Lucas. I am part owner and the manager of the property. So at the time I was dealing... Before you go, do you have any objections to the photographs? No, not at all. All right. So admit. Go ahead. So I was dealing with the previous code enforcer, which was Delinda, Ms. Delinda. And we had a meeting. You guys were generous and gave me the 60 days. What happened was we have a client that wants to rent both units. So the violation wasn't for the outside because the outside, all we did was stucco repairs and paint. And technically, you don't need a permit for that. So that's all we did on the outside. On the inside, we just built a partition wall because originally there was two units that were taken down the partition wall. And I put the partition wall back on once the tenants leave. Just to save you some trouble. No. The board ruled that you have a violation. That's law of the case. Correct. So I can't revisit that. So you can tell me that they were wrong, but I still have to follow their ruling, which was there was a violation. So the question to me is do you have a permit? But two weeks after our meeting here, I called Mr. Delinda and I said, listen, I have a tenant that wants to move in. And we are very close to close the lease. But she wants to take down that partition wall that I put up. So I said, so since we're going to take it down, do I still need a permit? She goes, let me check on that and I will keep you informed. I said, okay, please call me back. She had my cell phone number the same way I had her cell phone number. And she never got back to me. And a month, a month and a half went by and I'm like, what's going on? And then I eventually got in a hold with Mr. Conner because I realized that she got fired or whatever happened to her. And so technically speaking, she kind of like dropped the ball on me. I was just waiting to hear, get a feedback from her. Then on the last week we had a hearing, but there was the tennis court, the tennis game was going on and it got postponed to today. I spoke with Conner because actually Conner called my business partner and he told me, hey, listen, Delinda got fired. I had no idea because he told me or she was gone. She's no longer with the city. I just want to kind of streamline this. So are you saying that your property is in compliance? No, no, no. No, I still got to take it down, but I was just waiting to hear from Mrs. Delinda to see what was I supposed to do. And she left me kind of in limbo. And I was just waiting. And then I came to find out that she was gone. She's no longer with you guys. And then that's when I start moving sticks. And I call Conner right away. I just say, what's going on? So just to clarify. So I kind of got lost there for a minute. The wall is still up, correct? The wall is still up. And you have not obtained any permits. I have not because I was waiting for Mrs. Delinda to proceed. She left me kind of like in limbo going back and forth. You are admitting that you spoke to Mr. Lee previously before this hearing, correct? I did. I spoke with Mr. Lee before. And I actually, we came up with a solution where, you know what? I want to take the wall down because that's how everybody wants the property to be because everybody wants to rent the whole unit, not just half. So if I can just take the property down and then I call Mr. Lee because I can take it down. Again, I'm a builder in Delray. I build a lot of homes in Delray. I can take it down and be compliant. If I may, I mean, at this point it sounds like he wants to proceed with taking it down or whatever he needs to get into compliance. The city's position is that it's still out of compliance and we're moving for the fines to continue and a lien to be assessed for at this point. I just think the magistrate has to decide. I'm not sure if he has a separate ask aside from just letting you know what he intends to do. But that is the city's position right now. So if we could proceed. Yeah, I'm okay with that. I mean, it will take me two days to take it down and I'll call Mr. Lee and I'll, you can come in and inspect it and we're good to go. This is what I'll do. I'm going to lien and continue here, but I'm going to stay it for a week. In that week, if you can come into compliance, let the officer know. Okay. There's a, I am going to lien it at this stage, but there is a process where you can request a reduction of lien. The city can let you know how to do that. But at this point, to me, it's still out of compliance. No, no, no doubt. I'm not disagreeing with that. So I just want to clarify for purposes of when we write the order. So your order is that as of today, you find that the property is still out of compliance. I'm going to lien it today. Stay it for a week. If it's complied, if it's not complied within that week, the fines continue past that. The fines then, so should we do the lien as of today or after seven days? Do the lien today. Okay. And as of today, I'm going to stay the rolling fine for seven days to give you a chance to comply. If it's complied within that seven days, then the fine will end. You have to let the officer know. If not, it continues after seven days. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 15, code 25-000-362. The owner's name is John P. Claristore. The property address is 911 Southwest 6th Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon. This case was originally found to be work without permit, violation on October 29, 2025, for installing the fence. On January 7, 2026, the ruling was to obtain approved issued permits within 30 days or a daily fine of $100 per day. On February 9, 2026, a board order inspection was conducted, and it was observed that the violation still existed. On February 17, 2026, I posted a non-compliance hearing notice at the property. On February 10, 2026, non-compliance hearing notice was mailed first class, certified mailed, and posted at City Hall. As of today, March 19, 2026, the fine remains outstanding. I have six new photos to introduce as evidence and five previously showed photos from the initial hearing. City suggests lien the property in the amount of $3,800 and continued daily fine of $100 per day. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? You had any contact? Yes. I spoke with the property owner. He applied for the permit December 14, 2025, but he had to submit an affidavit of owner-builder, but never did. I spoke with him Monday, March 16, and informed him that he still needs to submit an affidavit. He said he would do it, but he still hasn't done it. Case 2500362, the property is still in violation. I lean at $3,800 and continue at $100 per day until it comes into compliance. Thank you. Moving on to old business, case number 16, 2025-003857. The owner on the property is Peppa Joseph Leore. The property address is 47 Northwest 11th Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. All right. Good afternoon. Connor Lee here for case 2025-003857. Issued by a past clean and safe officer, the property was originally found in violation on August 14, 2025, for an unpermitted tree removal. They were given 30 days to apply for and obtain a tree removal permit or $100 daily dollar daily fine. I have included one photo from the initial hearing and three new documents to show the property is now in compliance. There is an accrued fine of $16,100, and the owner is here requesting a reduction. The city suggests a reduction of bottom 25% of the total accrued fines with the maximum amount of $4,025 to be paid. So here is exhibit or the photo from the initial hearing taken on April 19th when it got issued originally. Here's the photo. It was a dead tree asked to be removed, but when it was removed, there was no permit obtained for it. So that's how we got here. And this was a re-inspection photo taken, the tree obviously gone, but at that time the permit had not been obtained. And then here in Exhibit 3 is a screenshot that the permit had been completed by development services, and the property was now in compliance for the tree that was removed. And then here is the affidavit of compliance dated the 23rd of February, 2026, when I was informed by the property owner that they had obtained a permit and I could place them in compliance. And those are my four exhibits. That's from the previous case. And so that one, yeah. Or no, this one is new. This one, one I took. Yeah. Can you tell me your names, please? Yes, my name is Joseph Peppa. My name is Anita Solomon. And then what is your relation to the property? My sister. And nephew, too. Yes, you do. Do you have any objections to the photographs? No, I do not. Without objection, so entered. Okay, so what are you asking me for and why should I grant it? So it all happened, I guess. I received a wear, I was aware of it on the 5th of May, so I tried to go there and cut the tree as soon as I could. And I was trying to apply for the permit. I came here a couple times. I was given just a note to apply online. I've never applied for a permit before, so I wasn't aware of everything that was needed. At some point, I emailed Delinda. She, I guess I received a letter, so I sent her an email just to try to figure out what I need to do. It wasn't until my sister got involved and she emailed, I guess, Ann in the office, who informed us that I needed an owner-builder affidavit to push it through. So once I received that, I filled that out, submitted it, and got everything else that was needed to be done. Why did it take so long? This is $16,000 at $100 a day. That's a long time. I work during the day, so every time I try to stop by. I've never filled out a permit before, especially online, so I wasn't aware of what was needed. Every time I tried to get an assistant, I was just kind of told to go fill it out, and I was just trying to Google and see what was needed to be done, what needed to be filed. If I may add, when they got notice of the noncompliance, Anita reached out to me almost immediately, and they worked to get it. We were in contact every week about it, trying to work, and so I think, yeah, just putting that there. Okay. So what are you asking me for? If I can interject for a second. So when we got the notification of the tree, it was like just before hurricane season, you need to remove it urgently. So my brother went and removed it, and I said, okay, we're going to deal with it. And then we were trying to connect. My name is Johnny. Hello, Johnny. He might have. He could have done it with the tools. It's a future lawyer you got there. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. So then we were trying, like I came a couple of times to the office. We were trying to be in touch with the previous code enforcement because we didn't know what to do else. Like, you know, we removed the tree. We removed whatever, you know, the danger there was. So now it's like what do we need to do next? We received a letter that we're not in compliance, but we didn't know what to do. So I kept, like, calling and coming to the office. We couldn't find a way. And then at the end, we just talked with Anne from the department. I said, somebody needs to know what to do next. So then I realized that the previous code enforcement lady was not working anymore. And then at that point, we started being in touch with Connor. So what are you asking me for? For a dead tree that was dead before we removed it. As low of a reduction as possible. Excuse me, we would actually like this to change our suggestion to 10% of the accrued fine. That's a pretty generous offer. Actually, is there a way to remove it? Because we removed the tree on time. The whole process was more on the permit title than, again, the previous. I'll cut it a little bit more to $1,500. How much time do you need? I can do it right now. I'll give you 30 days. All right. 1,530 days. Thank you so much. Thank you. He did a fine job, by the way. He was very convincing. No further business before us. We're adjourned.