Special Magistrate on 2026-05-07 1:30 PM - Special Magistrate - May 07, 2026

I'll call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate hearing for the city of Delray Beach. Cases are going to be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless otherwise noted. I'd appreciate it if everybody would stop their conversations. So this is going to be the code enforcement for Delray Beach. The cases are called in order, unless otherwise noted. The city presents its evidence and testimony first, then you have an opportunity to review the evidence that the city presents and ask any questions of the city's witnesses, after which time you can ask your own questions and present your own evidence, after which time I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So I'm going to ask if anyone is going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, would you please rise and raise your right hand, and you will be sworn in. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. The consent agenda postponed cases. Requesting to approve the consent agenda as written. So approved. Thank you. I've reviewed the minutes from April 2nd, and they are hereby approved. Thank you. All right. I believe that the city wanted to reorder the agenda. Yes. Yes. Thank you. We would like to call case number seven, please. Thank you. Case number seven. Case number seven. IR, code 26-000647. The owners are 213 East Atlantic LLC. Care of Big Time Restaurant Group Corp. Todd Herbst is the registered agent. The property address is 213 East Atlantic Avenue. The code officer on the case is Randall Strawn. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here regarding case number 26-00647 regarding 213 East Atlantic Avenue. My name is Randall Strawn. I'm here with the city of Derry Beach, Florida. This property was issued with an irreversible violation. Service was accomplished by a certified regular mail on April 10, 2026. In addition, both the property and the city hall were posted on the property on April 28, 2026. The affidavit of the post is also included in the case files. I have not been in contact with the property owner as of late. The property was cited for a list of discharge. On March 27, 2026, our code officer Randall Strawn observed an illicit discharge of HVAC condescending originating from the rear of the property. This discharge flowed into the public right-of-way, public alleyway, and directly into the city storm drainage system in a violation of the city ordinance, code section 53.012, subsection A2C. Because of this discharge, it has already entered the municipal stormwater system and impacted the environment. This offense is classified as an irreparable, irreversible violation. No remedial action can be undue or authorized. Unauthorized discharge has already occurred. This property was also previously violated for the same issue on April 24, 2025 in the amount of $5,000. As of May 6, 2026, the property has not come to compliance. I also have 10 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to answer the evidence. Okay, thank you. Can we get, did we already get their representation before we go to the presentation? We did none. Would you like to make your appearance? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Richard Delivero on behalf of the property owner, 213 East Atlantic LLC. Also with me is the general manager of the restaurant. His name is Daniel Sobey, S-O-B-E-Y. My last name is spelled D as in David, E-L-L-A, F as in Frank, E-R-A. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. I have 10 exhibits that I would like to introduce. This is exhibit one. This is the front of the restaurant, City Oysters. And when was that photograph taken? This was taken on March 31, 2026. Exhibit two was taken on March 27, 2026. This is the actual, this depicts a exhibit two showing the discharge going into the, this is the discharge going into the storm drain that's coming from the pipe. So for clarification, is that coming from the pipe directly behind the City Oyster restaurant? Yes, it is. In the real property, yes. Thank you. Exhibit three depicts also discharge flowing through the storm drain. This was taken on March 27, 2026. And on the ground, if you can go back to exhibit three, just also describe, when you say discharge, that is the AC condensation that you witnessed coming from behind the City Oyster that's flowing into the City storm drain? Yes, it's not water. And thank you. And as it's flowing, is it also picking up debris that's on the ground? Yes, it is. Thank you. And what type of debris was on the ground outside? It's rather than debris, just debris from landscape, just debris. Okay. And is there also, it looks like there's some dark spots, is there also grease on the ground as well, from your review? Well, my review is that just, that just condensate water. Okay, but that's, but that's. Yes. Okay. This is it before, this is the different angle of the property. This was taken on April, can't you see it, 14, 2026. This is, uh, shows another angle of the water going into the storm drainage. And as you can tell, there's, um, there's doors indicating the property is correct, so you can see it on those photographs. Yes, it is. Thank you. This is it before, taken on April 14, 2026. This shows the up-close visual of the property, the pipe coming down from the rear of the property of City Oyster, showing on the bottom, the puddle from the water that's coming down, uh, through the pipe. So in this picture here, Exhibit 5, you see it coming from the top of the property, which is kind of in the center of the photograph, correct? Yes. Flowing down to the ground, correct? Yes. And there's, are you talking about that in the center bottom of the photograph, that dark spot with the ripples that look like the, I guess, the reflection from water? Yes, it is. Okay, and is that what you're saying reflects in the other, other photographs that is flowing into the city storm drain? Absolutely, yes. Thank you. Um, and this is another picture of Exhibit 6, taken on April 14, 2026. So again, the water coming from the pipe, ground, discoloration to the, uh, concrete, flowing again inside the, uh, to the storm drains. And I, I noticed that this, of course, this is, um, an irreparable, reversible violation, and, um, you initially reserved, and what we're here for is the March 27th, correct? Yes. But on, when you, again, went back on April 14th, it was the same conditions that you witnessed on March 27th, correct? Correct. So this is just kind of a confirmation photo from the March 27th, correct? Yes, it is. Thank you. This is another exhibit, exhibit number 7, showing the, uh, the video clip of it. You got all that garbage? Sure. It was taken on March 27th, 2026. It's showing a video clip of the water going into the storm drain, flowing to the storm drain. And this is a photo of the previous receipt from City of Worcesters in the amount of $5,000. And this was, this was back in April, back on April 14th, 2025. So, that is correct. So that's for the similar type of violation? Yes. Okay. And that was within five years. I believe you said it was April 14th, 2025. Yes, it is. So actually that was less than a year. Less than a year. Thank you. And this is the posting that was taken on April 28th, 2026, posted to the property. Exhibit number 9 and exhibit 10 shows the affidavit of the posting also. Okay. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence. Senator Lavera? Uh, if, if I could voir dire on the, uh, the, it was exhibit 8. Come back to 8? Oh, yeah. May I? Mm-hmm. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon, officer. Good, bro. So, this, uh, receipt that you're showing of the, uh, the $5,000 that was paid in April of 2025, uh, this, that violation did not deal with the air conditioning condensation. Isn't that true? I've just, it dealt with illicit discharge. Right. You don't know. So as you sit here today, you don't know what the quote unquote illicit discharge was. I just know it was an illicit discharge. Right, but you don't know, you can't say that it was air conditioning condensation, correct? It just says it was a discharge. That's all. Okay. So, the answer to my question is no, you can't say that it came from air conditioning condensation. Again, like this is a discharge. That's what, that's what the, that's what the receipt says. Okay. Judge, I moved to strike exhibit 8. It's not relevant. And I'm going to object to that. Um, we do have testimony from a witness who will be able to testify. If you want to, if you want to accept it as a demonstrative aid at this point and introduce the other one through seven and nine and 10 into evidence, and we can clarify if you want to do that. But our original position is that it is relevant. Um, it is illicit discharge and pursuant to chapter 162. The violation just has to be for the same type of violation, which in that code section for what the violation was for, it was for the same code section 5301. So, you're entering it for the purposes of a, well, actually violation or. Well, we're just entering, yes, just for purposes of repeat violation. Yes. But our position is if, if you want to hear more testimony, you can, we'd ask that instead of striking it. But our original position is that it's relevant. It's a repeat violation pursuant to chapter 162, um, of the Florida statutes, um, for, for purposes of a repeat violation, it just has to be the same type of violation under the code section. And we're citing, which was, which was the previous one, 5301 to elicit discharge. Now, depending on what type of discharge is a different fact, but it's still discharge into the city storm water system. Yeah, I'm getting all out. I'm going to admit, uh, exhibits one through 10. So do you have anything further? Nothing from this witness. We do have another witness. So the fair, would you like to question the witness? Yes. Thank you. Um, so you would agree. Well, it seems that you are testifying that it was, uh, air conditioning condensation that was flowing, uh, out of that pipe that we saw in the prior exhibits, right? Right. So you, you have no evidence that there's any pollutants in that condensation, right? There's no grease in those, in, in that condensation, correct? No dirt in that condensation, correct? Debris, trash and debris. Well, trash and debris is in the alleyway, but I'm talking about what is actually coming out of that pipe. Yeah, it's matte water. It's, it's just plain water, right? Yes. Okay. That's all I have, Judge. And it's just, I just have one follow-up question. That is, um, water coming from the HVAC system, correct? Correct. Thank you. Any other? Yes. At this time, does he like to call Mr. Cuesta? I'm Cuesta, stormwater engineer. Questions. Um, how long have you been employed with the city? With the city of Dara Beach since 2024, so two years. And where, and, and tell us just, just briefly about your history working with the residents. Uh, since 2015, I started with the city of Boynton Beach. After nine, eight years there, city of Dara Beach, um, acquired my services. And as a part of your services and your position, do you have to become familiar with the city stormwater system? Correct. And are you familiar with the system and the, um, I guess the drainage and everything related as it relates to behind the property where City Oyster is located? Yes. And that's located at 21, 213 East Atlantic Avenue in Dara Beach, Florida? Yes. I actually administer the MPDS program. And what is the MPDS program? It's the National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System. Okay. And, um, are you familiar with the city's code of ordinance regarding the discharge of stormwater? Yes. And for purposes of AC or HVAC, um, water that flows into the city drainage, when is it permitted? If it ever ends. To, um, HVAC condensate, it's allowed to be discharged into the stormwater system under two conditions. Number one, it must be approved by the public works director. Uh, number two, uh, it has to be a, uh, direct connection, a direct, uh, piping without collecting any pollutants, uh, as a runoff, as we see it here. So just, just, let's get this, this, the first step out of the way. Was this property permitted to have AC condensation flow into the city stormwater system by the director? Not to my knowledge. Okay. And, you know, you have, you've become familiar with this case and you've researched to assist the code enforcement department, correct? Yes. And you independently reviewed photographs, the ordinances, and any approvals for this location, correct? Correct. And so as to the second part, um, could you describe, you know, what direct means? Direct means that it will not have contact with any other surface, but it will be enclosed, uh, like, uh, direct piping, not, not, not as runoff onto the right-of-way or asphalt where it can pick up pollutants, especially behind a restaurant where there's food handling and spills occur where then the spill can be carried into the stormwater system. Simply put, does direct mean that it goes through some type of piping directly from the exit of the AC condensation directly in the stormwater system, right? Correct. So there will be some type of infrastructure that would route it directly, correct? Right, underground, yes. It's underground or above ground, but it's not, it doesn't have to, or whatever, the condensate does not travel on the ground, correct? Correct. I, I'm going to object to the leading nature of the, of the questioning. Um, uh, I'll allow it, just, you know, let the respond and answer. Okay. So my next question is, did you have a chance to review these, these photographs from the allegation date of the 3-27? Yes. And, um, from your observations, um, and, um, and your visits to the site, what is on the ground that the condensate was distributing into the city stormwater? Well, as seen in the picture, uh, and it's proper, it's commonly seen in, behind restaurants where, uh, trash, food trash is being collected and disposed of, that there will, there will be markings of grease or, uh, by-product of spills, whatever substance there, but it's food related, food, uh, um, but when you have constant, uh, runoff from that pipe there next to the structure, it may, it may be, uh, there may be good chances of picking up, uh, those, uh, those pollutants into the storm drain. All right. So we're going to take a look at City's Exhibit 7 now. So you see here, there's a shine on the, on the floor. That's clearly an indication that it's just not clear water, but there might be some sort of grease that add that shine, that multicolor look proper. When you see, uh, like a grease spill from, let's just say, like, uh, uh, car wash, and you see the shine on the, on the water on the top. Based on your training and experience and your position in working with water and observing sites, uh, such as this, and your observations of this site, um, does it appear that this is just clear water on the ground? No. What, what appears to be there? It, it looks like clear water up to the point where it's discharged, being discharged, but once it's on the asphalt and noticing that there are, uh, bins, which pretty much, I, I think they handle, uh, food debris or trash, I, I, I can conclude that there might be some, the clear water, the condensate, may be picking up some pollutants. And regardless of the pollutants, um, would this, is this permitted in the city? No. It's actually unsanitary to continually have water. It's damaging for the road, for the asphalt. It's a trip hazard as well, because as you can tell, there's some, uh, uh, buildup already there. I'm going to object to the trip hazard. I don't see how that's relevant. Well, let's sustain it. Just speak to the water. Is there anything else you would like to add? I'm going to object to that. That would not, that would not be permitted. Oh, wow. I'm sorry. Can you please repeat your answer? That would not be permitted. And I'm showing you what has been thinking of the city of Missouri. Are you familiar with past violations for this property layer at 213 East Atlantic? Yes. And are you specifically familiar with this one from last year? Yes, I was present when it occurred. Okay. So you have personal knowledge, correct? Yes. And what was the violation for? The violation was, uh, I guess there was a spill. There was food debris on the ground. And an employee from the business was hosing down the vegetables and all the food debris into the catch basin. But at that moment also we called the attention of the manager or whoever was representing the, the, um, restaurant that the condensate was inappropriate as well. So we, we did mention that to them. So just specifically for the violation, was that a violation for five, the same one here, five, three, oh, one, two, eight, you see discharge? It's elicit discharge. Whether you discharge milk or mud or whatever source, if, in the stormwater system, we only want rainwater. We, we don't want people washing things off into our storm drain because then it becomes, uh, a health issue. Uh, we don't want to, uh, feed rodents or any. Okay. You just, you know, what, it just simply was just the same type of violation. Right. It's unsanitary. No further questions? Okay. Thank you. The, uh, the AC discharge, uh, these, uh, uh, approvals that you've referred to, uh, you know, the direct connection, is, is that in writing anywhere? Yes, it's in the code of ordinance. Where in the code of ordinance? On their illicit discharge, uh, it's quoted here in the violation notice. Dealing with a direct, uh, requirement of a direct connection. Yeah. Where is that? The direct connection is what the director will approve. So it's not written in specifically that a direct connection is required. That's what the director would approve. Uh, look on that, uh, you have that document in front of you that has 553.0128 to C, right? Mm-hmm. Read to us exactly where it says that a direct connection is, uh, required. Projection asked an answer. He hasn't answered it. That's why I'm asking you. I do have an answer. It says here, unless determined by the director to be unacceptable. In this case, the director has considered this to be unacceptable. And where is that in writing? And only direct piping. Uh, your, your client has not submitted a formal letter requesting permission. But I, I took the liberty of addressing back in April. I approached the director and I asked him if, if she would consider acceptable for us to have, uh, underground piping. And, and, and, and the director said that that, that, that's something that she can consider. Now, the, uh, the, the business needs to initiate and send a letter to the director and we have not received that yet. Okay. Okay. So, you would agree with me that within that, within that, within the code, there's nothing that says that, uh, a direct connection, uh, is, is an approved, uh. That, that is something that we will consider. What is not approved is what we see right now. Right. So, so, so we're just waiting for you to send a letter to the public works director, uh, proposing that. And that's, that's what we had, uh, communicated in the past. To whom did you communicate that? I can't recall. It's been almost a year, but it was somebody that seemed to be a manager or, uh, because they, they asked us. We gave them ideas of what may work. Do you recognize this gentleman standing to my left? No. You don't recognize him to be the manager of City Oyster? I do not recall. I don't recall. So he's, you're saying he's not the guy, not the person that you relayed this information to in April of 2025? Not to my memory. Okay. All right. But in April of 2025, it was a dishwasher or some employee rinsing off vegetables. Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. And you're saying that at the time, the condensation issue was, was noticed. Correct. Correct. Correct. It was mentioned to whoever came out from there. Okay. So we let them know. Um, and, but there was no citation of the air conditioning condensation at that time? Uh, no, I think, uh, the person said that they were going to be addressing to, to give them time. Um, so that's why I, I, I myself didn't go back there thinking that we were going to receive a letter, but we, we have not yet. Okay. You told that person to send a letter? Yeah. I told them that, that this is, uh, that they need to get approval from the director. Uh, and, and they said, well, what can they approve? I said, well, uh, underground pipe and direct connection. Okay. So you don't recall whether this was the gentleman that you spoke to, but you remember that conversation. I, I do remember mentioning that, yes, because it's, it's common. It's common in many, many other restaurants that may have the same issue. So that's, that's what we can agree with. Okay. Uh, you're saying that, um, that that, uh, what we see in the photograph in seven is evidence of, of food grease or something? Right. The, the shine of, of the water. It doesn't just look like clean water. Okay. But that was never tested or anything like that, correct? We don't have to test, uh, dirty water. We, we just go by appearance. I, I'm asking if it was tested. No. Okay. And you don't know to the extent that it could be any kind of food. There were other restaurants back in that, uh, back in that, uh, alleyway, correct? Correct. Right. So you, even if that were some kind of food by-product, you can't say that that came from City Oyster, correct? You can't say definitively, I mean, right? I leave it up to you. I don't, I'm not. Okay. So, so you, so you don't know the answer to that question. Well, it's behind, it's behind City Oyster. So I, I cannot assume that somebody else came from a different restaurant. Well, if, I mean, rainwater, rainwater will move, uh, debris in the alleyway, right? Mm-hmm. And that's why restaurants have the responsibility to keep them clean. Right. So, so if, if there is food, debris, or grease from another restaurant, and there's rain, that's going to push the grease around, right? I, I, if I recall well, the pitch of the road, you are at the highest point. So I don't see any other restaurant pushing grease towards this restaurant. Okay. As you recall? Um, I'm pretty certain 99%. Okay. And, uh, how have you, how have you measured that? Um, usually water runs downhill. Okay. So never seen water running uphill. Okay. So, and for my recollection, because I drive around when it rains, just to see how the stormwater system is working, I've never seen runoff running from the west to the east on that alleyway. Okay. And I believe that's the first restaurant there. You don't seem sure. No, I'm saying that I'm sure, yeah. Okay. You said you believe, and now you say you're sure. Well, if you want to play with my words, I'm trying to be nice. No, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not playing with your words. Okay. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Yes, I am sure, sir. Thank you. Um, just a minute. That's all I have. I have one follow-up question. Just to be clear, based on your review of all the city records and your previous discussions and knowledge of this case, is there an approval by the director for the way this storm drainage system, um, I'm sorry, the AC condensation was flowing into our storm drain system on March 27th, 2026, by this property? No. Thank you. Other questions? No. Does the city have any other witnesses? No. The floor are yours. Thank you. Um, I'll call Dan Sobey. Uh, Ms. Sobey, uh, why don't you introduce yourself and, uh, tell us what you do for a living? My name is Daniel Sobey. I'm the general manager of City Oyster. Mr. Sobey, can you do us the favor of talking into the microphone? No, I'm sorry, Joe. No, sir. My name is Daniel Sobey. I'm the general manager of City Oyster, and I've been managing that restaurant for over seven years. Okay. Uh, we heard talk about, uh, April 2025, uh, violation. Uh, are you aware of that instance? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Were you present when, uh, city, uh, code people, um, observed what they alleged to be a violation? No, I was not there that day. Okay. So, what, what did you hear about that violation? Um, that our dishwasher was hosing off the alley. We were talking about 2025? Yeah, yeah. Our dishwasher was hosing the back alley, um, and I guess he was hosing some debris in the storm drain. Do you know anything about, uh, a city official making mention of the air conditioning condensation? No. But you weren't there present? Correct. Okay. Uh, did any of the, uh, any managers bring it to your attention that, uh, well, how was it brought to your attention about the, uh, the hosing of the, the food, uh, debris? When I, when I got the citation, I looked at our video camera. Okay. And then I went to, uh, town hall and, uh, spoke with someone there and they told me what had happened and what they had witnessed. And, and who was that person? It might've been Henry. I'm not sure that it was him in 2025, but someone told me that the dishwasher, I said he was spraying water in the storm drain. He said, no, he's spraying more than water down the storm drain. Okay. And did this Henry, this is Henry right here? That's, um, that's Henry. Oh, another individual. Okay. Not the person that just testified. Correct. Okay. Did Henry say anything to you about the air conditioning condensation? Not then. Okay. Uh, prior to this violation in, uh, March, uh, you know, uh, this year, was it ever brought to your attention that, uh, the, the, the city had an issue with this air conditioning condensation? No. That's all I have. Ms. Warren? Do you have any other witnesses? Nope. All right. I'll hear argument. Yes. So we'll start. Um, today we're here for a violation of a city code of ordinance 53012 discharge prohibited in stormwater, which states that under no condition shall the discharge of domestic sanitary industrial commercial waste be permitted into the stormwater system. Further, any discharge into the stormwater system, not composed entirely of stormwater is generally prohibited, prohibited. In this case, we have a discharge of AC condensation. The whole purpose of, you know, determining whether an approval will be necessary is because the water drags other pollutants and other items on the ground into the city stormwater system. We've heard overwhelming evidence and saw photographs that indeed the condensation from the HVAC system was flowing into the city stormwater system, not only regular or HVAC water, but as well as other pollutants and contaminants on the ground flowing into the system. So I think this is pretty simple as far as the facts go. It sounds like the argument is whether the AC condensation was permitted. And we've heard testimony from Mr. Uesas that this was not and would not be approved by the director unless there were some type of direct connection from the AC location into the city stormwater system. So that's the city's position on this case. And then you also heard testimony that, you know, that would be purposes for sanctions or for sanctions of whether or not this was a second violation. So from the code that air conditioning condensation is accepted X with an E, E-X-C-P-T from the prohibitions of discharge. The city's taken the position that it was communicated to the owner. But I don't know that that's been definitively shown through the testimony. But even so, even from the code officer's testimony, it's just pure water that's coming out of this pipe. It's not, there's no pollutant in it. There's no grease in it. There's no dirt in it. I think that what I'm hearing is, well, the alleyway has potential pollutants. But the same issue would occur in a rainstorm. So I don't consider this to be, you know, this is not a willful violation of putting, intentionally putting pollutants into the city's storm drain system. So I don't believe that they've proven, you know, a valid, intentional violation of the code, considering the facts as we have heard them. As far as the prior violation, we know that it was something completely different. It was an employee spraying hose water on some food items, which I think is completely different from what we have here. So I submit that the city has not presented a sufficient case of a violation of the code. And I asked the officer to find in favor of City Oyster. So may I just make one clarification, just as a rebuttal. The city's expert from Mr. Cuesta provided credible evidence based on his familiarity with the area, based on his knowledge of the previous violation. It was pretty clear that he remembers what happened. And it was pretty clear that he remembers the conversation he had. And we also heard testimony that the manager, or I forgot his title, was not even there during the last violation, was not even present. So the person that was present during the violation testified that he spoke to a representative, advised him that the condensation was an issue, that it was not permitted or acceptable, even advised that they, you know, he had previous conversations with the director who said it was unacceptable. However, she would consider it to be acceptable if certain measures were taken, which were communicated to the property owner. Here we are back again in March 27th, you know, after they were previously told about the condensation being unacceptable, we have this violation. So I think the argument that the water may have been clear at the point that it exited, onto the street and drug all of those items on the ground, you know, that's the reason why you're supposed to have those proper protections and mechanisms in place, and to have those types of items that were suggested to prevent this from happening. So I think it's clear that there was a violation from the evidence presented, and we ask that you find our evidence and our witnesses credible and find that there was a violation. We can't take this back, this information which we heard the testimony of, you know, someone, you know, I understand you saying the code officer said it looks clear, but we have an expert who deals with water. That's their main role here, is saying that it looks like there are some glossy items as well as obvious that if there's food and other debris on the ground, it doesn't look clear on the photo. So I would ask that you take your observations and common sense in this case and find that there was a violation. What remedy is the city seeking? The city has asked for a one-time fine of $15,000 to be paid in 30 days by June 7, 2026. May I respond to that? Yes, go ahead. I think that that is excessive if the officer is going to find a violation. For the reasons that I've said about the nature of the discharge, it's not grease that's being forced into the drain. They're not putting grease in the drain or pollutants in it. It's the AC, it's the runoff from the AC. So I don't think that that is egregious to require a $15,000 fine. I think that that's excessive. And I'd ask the officer to reject that recommendation. I was just saying, I believe we presented evidence that was entered that the previous fine was $5,000 just under a year ago for the same code violation. Whether it's depending on the different item that was transferred into the water, but 53012 is discharging to the city storm water system. I think we're going around in circles at this point. So this is what I think. The facts here are really not that difficult to ascertain. They're largely undisputed. There's clearly water running from an AC condensation. That water is running down the alley. That water is picking up debris as it runs down the alley. And it is putting that debris in the storm drain. That's pretty clear. It's also clear that there's no necessarily there's a pollutant in the AC. It's clearly AC discharge. I don't think there's any evidence that there's an intentional. But there's no mens rea for this. This is just a discharge. There is some dispute as to the meaning of 53.012 between the parties, I can tell. As I read it, there's two prominent sections here. The first is that any discharge into the storm system not composed entirely of storm water is generally prohibited, which is the base standard here. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether or not it was conveyed that the director found the discharge unacceptable. But I find the testimony of the city's witnesses as certainly believable that they did convey this. And the representative from the city oyster wasn't here at the time that that was conveyed. But I find that to be certainly believable and plausible. So where does that leave us? So we have a water condensation from an AC running across an alleyway picking up debris and putting itself into the storm drain. That does appear to be a technical violation of 53.02. And I make such finding. As to the city's recommendation, I agree with the respondent that considering the circumstances here, that's probably severe since they were not directly dumping discharge. But, you know, they were violating the section. So I'm going to issue a one-time fine in the amount of $5,000 payable. What date were you looking for? June 7th. June 7th, 2025. And I recommend to the respondent to get with the city to find an acceptable way to put their AC discharge into the storm drain without running through pollutants. And that's my role. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Case number one. Case number one. I.R. Code 26-000-679. Property owners are 411 Realty Investment, LLC. The registered agent is Jason M. Lazar. The property address is 411 East Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Haney's Batista Hernandez. Anyone else that came in late that hasn't been sworn in, now's your chance. Rise and raise your eyes. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. 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. Please proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon, Special Magistries. My name is Haney's Batista Hernandez, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Delray Beach, Clean and Safe Division. I am here regarding a violation of outdoor solicitation and unauthorized business activity located at the 411 East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E, Delray Beach. On April 15, 2026, the Clean and Safe Division observed employees of the StartMed located at 411 East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E, actively solicitating pedestrians directly in front of the business. Employees were persistently approaching individuals in the public right-of-way to promote services and solicit business. These activities were conducted outside of the approved indoor premises of the business and within the public right-of-way. This conduct constitutes a violation of Section 4.6.6A of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations, which prohibits the use of outdoor areas for conducting business activities, including solution without proper authorization. A review of city records confirmed that the business has not obtained approval or conditional use authorization permitting outdoor business operations. Additionally, the observed activity does not fall under any permitted outdoor use categories. This property has a prior history of the same violation. In March 5, 2026, at a special magistrate hearing, one respondent was found in violation of Section 4.6.6, Subsection 8, Subsection 1-3, and was ordered to pay a one-time fine in the amount of $1,500 within 60 days. The order also stated that a certified copy may be recorded in public records of the Palm Beach County Court, and once recorded, should constitute a lien against the property in accordance with Chapter 162 for the status. Despite the ruling, the violation has reoccurred. A notice of violation was posted on the property on April 23rd, 2026, and a notice of violation was sent by certified first-class mail on April 21st, 2026. Would you like to proceed with the photograph? The exhibit one is a photograph showing an employee of StartMed with a client soliciting in front of the property. What was the date of that photograph? That photograph was taken on April 15th of this year. And that's the date of the violation, correct? Yes, ma'am. Let's go to City's Exhibit 2. What does this reflect? That's the posting affidavit. Exhibit 3? Exhibit 3 is just a photograph of the front of the business, and you could see on the sidewalk, there's the display table. And was that display table there on March, I'm sorry, April 15th, 2025? Yes, ma'am. 2026? Yes, ma'am. And are you familiar with the previous violation? Yes, it was the exact same violation. Right, and during that violation, it was told to them that that was not permitted, correct? Correct. Okay, thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the three photographs into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Moore Pilo. Can you spell your last name? P-I-L-O. Mr. Pilo, what's your relation to the 411 Realty Investment LLC? I own the business. You own the business that's renting that space? Of course. Mr. Pilo, have you gotten permission from the property owner to be here on their behalf? Yes. Any objection? No objection. Mr. Pilo, do you have any objection to the photographs that the city would like to put in evidence? Yes. What is your objection to those photographs? For the first photograph... Let's go back to the first. So, as you could see on exhibit at three, we have to stand outside, and when people approach and choose their samples, my representatives are basically just going outside and handing it to them in the back. So, he was not approaching it. He was not approaching the customer and asking her to come to her. Mr. Pilo... Yes? Mr. Pilo, what I'm asking you is whether you object to the photographs. If you want to... I mean, I will give you time to make your argument. Oh, I'm sorry, then. No. No objection, then, for the photographs. I'm sorry. I missed an answer. Mr. Pilo, not objection, so admit it. Does the city have anything further? No. Now it's your turn. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, it's all right. So, as I said, on the previous... So, you were telling me that you... So, you do have a stand out there, right? Yes. But on the previous violation, I didn't get a violation for the display. You guys allowed me to have the display outside. I have allowness for the display outside, and the violation from... The last violation was for soliciting, for approaching the people, for giving out the samples, and asking them to come into the store. Since then, we basically are not doing it. Clearly, on the picture, the lady just came up front to the store, asked to grab a sample, and my representative just put it in a little bag for her. Off-examination question? Good afternoon. You were here for the last violation, correct? It was less than two months ago? Right. And I believe when you were here, you made the argument that a Juan Delinda was counsel to your previous code enforcement officer, permitted you to have items outside, correct? Correct. And we provided testimony, evidence, and told you, hearing that that was not correct. Not correct. That was not a part of the violation, and you can... I'm not asking you if it was a part of the violation. You stated that you could do that, and we presented evidence that that was incorrect. Right, because it's a part of my zoning. So your testimony today that you are zoned and have an approval to have items outside of your business. These are not items. No. That stand, is it your testimony that a part of your zoning and your site plan approval that you're allowed to have that podium outdoors? Yes. Well, I don't see anything on the violation stating that I'm not allowed to have it outside. If you would tell me today that I'm not allowed to have it outside, then okay, I will understand. But previously to today, I never heard about the fact that I'm not allowed to have the display outside. I've had this display over there for five years. So let me ask you this. A part of your business approval was to have items, conduct business inside of your building, correct? Yes. Conduct business inside. I don't have anything for it. It's just like a restaurant having a signature signing outside. So, and then people will come in and ask the waitress what is on the menu, or what is the happy hour. Okay. May I have a call? We call the waitress. Yeah. At this time, I'd say we'd like to call Mr. Henry Thompson. Good afternoon, Mr. Thompson. What is your position with the city? I'm the Clean and Safe Administrator. So as a part of being the Clean and Safe Administrator, are you familiar with businesses located in this area of the city? Correct. And are you familiar with this business located at 411 East Atlantic Avenue? Yes, correct. And as a condition of their approval, are they allowed to conduct business outside of the business? I actually don't know definitively, but I can research it, but I can guarantee you that's a, that's incorrect. He's not allowed to have that outside. All right. And based on your experience with this case and reviewing the previous violation, were you present during that violation? Yes, I was. And during that violation, did testimony come out that they weren't allowed to do things outside of the door of the business? Yes, correct. Okay. Thank you. Your Honor, the violation was for soliciting, not for the display. So we stopped with the soliciting. If you see Exhibit 3, if you can show Exhibit 3. Was it the same code section? It was the same code section. Just to clarify, the violation was for conducting business outside. That's correct. Correct? Okay. I'm sorry. Did you want to see Exhibit 3? Yes, please. You can see that on the left of the door, there is a little bench. It's a new bench that I've basically put for the representatives to clearly just sit over there, and when a client voluntarily just approaches the stand, they would just beg it to put it in the lower back for them. So I'm really trying to do everything in my best in order to come with the city's compliance. It's been difficult, you know, with the off-season right now and with having a competitor right in front of my street. I was pretty much confused about the last violation. I really thought it was all about the soliciting, so we stopped with the soliciting thing, and I'm just trying to have people approach to our door by themselves, and I would love to keep going. You still can't conduct the business outside the building. That's what the code section says, but what is the city asking for? The city is asking for a one-time fine in the amount of $10,000 to be paid within 30 days by June 6th of 2026. And it should be noted that the, I believe there's testimony for the code of enforcement officers that the, you know, going toward the gravity and the previous violation, that that's actually outstanding as well. Your Honor, I didn't... I'm sorry, I'm sorry, what is outstanding at this point? The previous fine. Previous fine is okay. Yes, I still haven't paid it. That's right. Mr. Pilo, I'll give you the last word. I clearly didn't get confused and did not know that I'm not allowed to put the display outside. If it's needed, I would just take it out of there. But as you can see from expedited three and expedited one, there's no people standing outside. If my representative was outside, it's clearly just to put the sample in the bag for the client. So I'm asking the city to just, you know, waive the violation and give me another chance. And they won't see the display outside anymore. Why haven't you paid the previous fine? Difficult times. I will... I'm planning to do it before the two months ends. It's been difficult. Mr. Pilo, I'm going to give you a little bit of a break here. But just so there's lack of clarity, you cannot conduct business outside your building. Do you understand me? Yeah. In case 2600679, I make the fine findings a fact on the life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of 4.6.6A123. The fine said violation is irreparable. I issue a one-time fine. What was the original fine? Was it $1,500? All right. I'm going to double it to $3,000. But I will tell you this, if you show up in front of me one more time, I'm going to hit you with the maximum fine I can do it. Because I don't think there's any confusion anymore. Are you confused anymore? No. $3,000 payable by June 6, 2026. Thank you. Case number two, code 26000602. The property owner is Charles A. Smith III. Property address is 1033 Brooks Lane. And the code officer on the case is Latoya Thompson. Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement supervisor Latoya Thompson. I'm here regarding a C-Raw repair case. For discretion, the property owner lives in Germany. So you'll hear me say something different. And that's why I'll be saying it. On March 5, 2026, I investigated a complaint about street flooding caused by a deteriorating seawall located at 1033 Brooks Lane, Delray Beach, Florida. While on the intracoastal waterway, I observed the seawall at the property was deteriorating and in need of repair. After further investigation, it was determined that the condition constitutes a violation of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinance, section 100.4, subsection A through C, seawalls, and the City of Delray Beach land development regulations, section 7.1.7, subsection D, subsection 4, and subsection D, subsection 5. I have eight photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created March 7, 2026. The magistrate violation was emailed on March 19, 2026. Compliance was required by April 17, 2026. The violation was posted to the property March 18, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted via EPL on April 18, 2026. No permit has been applied for as of that date. I have been in contact with the property owner who, once again, currently resides in Germany. And what have your communications been with the property owner? I've been communicating with him back and forth regarding what he needs to do as far as getting a marine engineer to give him an estimate about the seawall, to contact the city. He's also been in communications with Madison as well. And Madison is what department? Madison is in development service. She's the permit manager. Okay, so you've had verbal and email communications? Verbal and email, yes, ma'am. And they're aware of the violation? Yes, ma'am. Did you advise them of the date? Yes. And you posted the property, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Exhibit 1 was taken on March 5, 2026. This is a photo of the tearing seawall. Exhibit 2, also taken on March 5, 2026, it's also another photo of the deterioration of the seawall. Exhibit 3, taken on March 5, 2026, another area of the seawall with a gap. According to the ordinance, you shouldn't have a gap right there. And when you say a gap, do you mean on the left side of the property? Can you just highlight, circle that area? Let me see if I can do it. Are you referring to this area here? Yes, ma'am. Which is where the seawall is disconnected from the neighboring property? From the neighboring property, yes, ma'am. Thank you. Exhibit 5 is taken on March 18, 2026. That's the posting of the violation. Exhibit 6 is the address, 1033 Brooks Lane, taken on March 18, 2026. Exhibit 7 is an affidavit of posting and also mailing. And Exhibit 8 is a noncompliance after doing a re-inspection. No permits were pulled, the date, on the 18th of April. So, in this case, we have two violations, correct? Yes, ma'am. We have a violation of 100.04 A through C seawalls for the disconnect and the improper construction, correct? Yes, ma'am. And then we also have a violation of our land development regulation, 7.1.7 D, 4 and 5 for the improper maintenance. Yes, ma'am. And that's causing the elevation. Can you talk a little bit about the elevation of how the structure is of the seawall? As far as that, the structure, as you see in the pictures, let me go back, the cracks, the different cracks and damages to the seawall, and let me go here, see how the neighboring seawall is above that, that seawall needs to be brought up. So, you mean like the height? The height needs to be brought up to the current code. Okay, thank you. What has the property owner conveyed to you about their intentions here? Currently, the contractor is here that is representing the property owner that can speak. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? My name is Lawrence Robbins, and I've been sworn in. Can you spell your last name, sir? Robbins, R-O-B-B-I-N-S. I'm the owner of Docks and Seawalls, or general contractors operating in Lantana, Florida. What's going on with the seawall? Okay, so I've inspected it, and I've had an engineer three times, actually. We've had a hard time because we haven't had low tides, and the engineer insisted that he looks at it low tide. And he agrees, and so does the owner, by the way, that we need to start a program to do resurfacing, to make that small area connection, and bring it up to code. And as far as the flooding goes, we'll just see what happens. It shouldn't flood through that seawall. There is a city-owned street drain right there that's located on the very west end of the property, but we're not going to consider that as a problem. That's the city's problem. We're definitely going to do maintenance on that wall and add an amount of elevation to ensure that with the king tides, you don't have water slopping over the top. What's your time frame here? Well, because of the type of wall, it's very tidily affected to do it right. And because I'm a general contractor, I've got to do it right. And I would say probably within the next 30 days, we should get enough low tides to get a good start on it and do the work. When would you pull the permit? I could pull the permit for the curb almost immediately. As soon as my engineer gives me the drawing that I can give to the city. As far as the maintenance work goes, a permit is not necessary to do that sort of work. But almost immediately, I'll be able to get a permit for that cap addition. What's the city seeking here? The city suggests to apply for or obtain an approved issue permit on or before July 7th, 2026, or a fine of $100 per day will be assessed against the property until compliance is achieved. I think that's very acceptable. Yeah, I think that's pretty reasonable. All right, in case 26-0-0-0-6-0-2, I make the filing findings of fact on life. I notice it's fished to find the property in violation of the listed code sections, specifically the condition of the seawall. This pondant has until July 7th, 2026 to pull a permit and begin work or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. It's a lot of time, but hopefully you'll get to it a little earlier than that. Very good. Thank you. Magistrate, I'd like to confirm it's going to be $100 a day? Yes. Thank you. That's after July 7th if we don't comply. That is correct, sir. Okay. Case number 3. Case number 3, 026-000-604. The property owner is David J. III and Kelly J. Long. The property address is 744 C. Sage Drive. And the officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson. Hold on one second. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Just for future, if you hear your case call, just go ahead and proceed to the podium up here. I'm sorry, Officer Thompson. Please go ahead. I'm here regarding a structure that was built without a permit within the required setbacks located at 744 C. Sage Drive, Delray Beach, Florida. On March 5th, 2026, I investigated a citizen complaint regarding a neighboring property located at 744 C. Sage Drive, Delray Beach, Florida. During the investigation, I observed a structure located on a dock. It was determined that the size and location of the structure on the dock does not comply with the City of Delray Beach setback requirements. Permission was not granted for the structure to be built on the dock, which constitute a violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulation Code Section 4.3.4, subsection A, and 4.3.4, subsection H4, base district development standards. I have four photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created March 7th, 2026. A magistrate violation was mailed first class and certified mailed on March and posted at City Hall March 25th, 2026. Compliance was required by April 21st, 2026. The violation was posted to the property March 25th, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted via EPL on April 22nd, 2026, and it was confirmed that no permits have been applied for. I have also had direct contact with the contractor regarding this matter. Well, do share. Myself, Madison, who's also here, she's the permit manager and other city employees, was speaking to the contractor regarding on what he needs to do to keep the structure on the dock, and he would have to apply for a variance. We explained, correction, Madison explained to him the process of the variance. He seems as if he wanted to keep this structure on the dock, but never made any attempt to apply for a variance. How long ago was this conversation? This conversation was April 6th. So the structure is not permitted, and it can't be permitted in its current form. Is that essentially correct? So, just to be clear, the structure, we never received an initial building permit for the structure. Or permission to. Or even permission to. Have it on the dock. Just to be clear, there is a process that has to go before it even gets to permanent. I believe there's a variance that may need to be obtained. So there are steps. So what we're asking for is, you know, to bring this property into compliance, they can just remove the structure, or they can attempt to get a building permit, which will require a variance, which extends the time frame. So I think that's why there is a bifurcated ask here. Within 30 days, apply for the variance. And obviously meet with city staff or remove it, or obtain the building permit within the 60 days time frame, which would include the variance. So we're, you know, really, essentially, it's just bringing the property into compliance. So I'm not sure how best you see for us to put it in the order. You can say bring it into compliance by contacting the development services department. Why don't we just give them 60 days, one way or another? Okay, so 60 days to bring the property into compliance as, you know, as determined through communications with the development services department. I'm not sure how we want to write it. I don't know that it has to, that I have to even go that far. They can bring it into compliance on the 60 days, either by removing it or by getting it properly permitted, and there's a process. But I don't think we need to put that in the order. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Does that work for the city? Yes. That's fine. Yes. All right. In case 26-0-0-0-6-0-4, I make the following findings. In fact, I'm going to find notices efficient to find the property in violation of the list of code sections, specifically the structure built on the dock without proper permitting. Respondent has 60 days to bring the, well, let's make it a day certain, right? What's 60 days from now? July, July 7th? That'll work for me. Yeah, July 7th. All right. Respondent has until July 7th to bring the property into compliance or a fine of up to, what were you asking? $100. $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number four, code 26-0-0-0-6-2-8. The property owner is 222 North Ocean Boulevard, LLC. The registered agent is Blaine C. Dickinson. The property address is 218 North Ocean Boulevard. And again, the code officer on the case is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Enforcement Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding a construction site condition and erosion control sediment violation located at 218 North Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach. On March 9th, 2026, code enforcement received a citizen complaint concerning a previously demolished construction site that was possibly being used for storage, staging, and other activities unrelated to its intended purpose. A building inspector investigated the complaint and observed the construction materials scattered throughout the site, a dumpster filled with trash and concrete washed from a mixer. Additionally, the site has been demolished for over a year with no subsequent construction activity, and the property has not been properly maintained, including failure to sod the site. These conditions constitute a violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations, specifically 4.43, subsection I, 1 through 11, construction site conditions and restrictions, and subsection 4.6.17, subsection D, subsection 4, erosion and sediment control methods. I have 13 photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created on March 19th, 2026. A magistrate violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted to City Hall March 24th, 2026. Compliance was required by April 22nd, 2026. The violation was posted to the property March 25th, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted April 24th, 2026, and the condition of the construction site remains the same. I have had contact with a representative from the construction development. The City is requesting that all materials must be properly stored and the site be sodded on or before May 21st, 2026. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $100 per day assessed against the property until appliances achieved. Exhibit 1 through 6 was taken by the building inspector who is currently here. Would you like him to speak on behalf of the... I probably should. William Durr. Good afternoon. State your full name for the record and your position with the city. William Durr and I'm structural inspector. Yes. Yeah, I believe the first to them like she said. And is it a fair and extra accurate representation of what you saw? It is. And would you sculpt it or would you just describe what you saw? So City is exhibit one. What did you see on the property? Well, you can see miscellaneous wood, things like that, dumpster assorted. There's rebar back there in the background. It's a very large site. It's a double lot. And it's just kind of screwed about. City is exhibit two? More of the same. City is exhibit three? Again, more of the same type of materials. Looks like form boards there. And it's obviously not permitted on the site. I'm not aware of what's permitted or what isn't. I was directed by my boss to do a citizen complaint to go to the site and make some observations. Okay, and you provided this to the code enforcement department to determine whether or not it was a violation. Directly, I reported. Report it to your boss. To my boss, who took it from there. To the code department, correct? Correct. To this exhibit four? It looks like a sign for a future development over there. And it's got the contractor sign on the ground there. Just looks like there's some beginnings of a concrete pad there. Is it a background? In the background, yes. So more of the same? That's a concrete runoff. Looks like maybe a truck cleaned itself up there. Not that there was concrete installed on the site. Maybe a truck just came by and cleaned itself. Okay. Is it a six? You can see some rebar there, stacks all around, formed, various construction materials. Well, thank you. Okay. Sir, can you tell us your name? Yeah, my name's Andrew Maggiore. It's M-A-G-G-I-O-R-E, Senior Vice President of Stomp Development Group. We are the owner of 218-222 North Ocean Boulevard. Do you have any questions for the building inspector? I do not. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Do you have any other photos? Ms. Thompson, if you can proceed. So, before you go, this information was provided to you, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Exhibit 7 is the posting of the violation on March 25, 2026. Exhibit 8 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 9 was taken on April 24th during the re-inspection. As you can see, there's trash out in the front, debris sign laying out there. I'm not quite sure, but the screen is down on the fence. They were trying to cover the fence for privacy. Exhibit 10 is another angle of outside. These are double lots, 218 and 222. You can see a trash bag out there. Exhibit 11 was taken from the Dorchester. They allowed me on the property so I can take a picture. Once again, that's construction debris that should be neatly put away if this is the material to start the building. However, if it's not... Wouldn't they need a building permit to store it out there? Yeah. So, that's what I'm saying. If they're in, waiting for building permits to be approved. Exhibit 11 is just another wide angle to show the, once again, double lot with different construction debris over. And, of course, since it's been a year, the property needs to be sodded so the sentiment doesn't, when the wind gets a hold of it, blows into the neighboring property. And Exhibit 13 is just the affidavit of noncompliance. Mr. Maggiore, do you have any objections to any of these photographs? I do not. Without objection, so admitted. So, do you have anything further? No. So, what's going on here? You know, we applied for a permit in August of 2025. We have since gone through two rounds of revisions. My shell contractor took some liberties in staging materials he's going to need to start. We got issued a round of comments in February. They told us our permit was pretty close, so we started stacking form boards there to get it ready. No one was being a good clerk or steward of my multi-million dollar site, and it ran amok. And I've spoken with LaToya. It's unacceptable. And we've taken steps, although not in compliance period, to clean it up. There is some excess fill there that's been leveled out. We've taken and hauled debris, and then the fence was repaired as of Friday. Obviously, daily and a dollar short doesn't get me anywhere, but there's a new windscreen, a new top rail on the fence, and are making steps to add the aggregate that's in the easement area resolved as we work with DOT to finalize our permit. Mr. Thompson, what does the respondent have to do to bring this into compliance? They will have to store the materials properly. The site must be resodded on or before May 21, 2026, if they haven't yet to achieve approval of permits. Would you allow for hydro seeding instead of sodding hay and seed? No. And I think we have those questions. We've had it on other properties of ours. Sometimes it's just we're going to be tearing it up our permits probably like 60 days out, and at least that's what the permit department said two weeks ago. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll give you until May 31, and you can have a conversation with the code officer exactly about what to do about your sodding, but I think that's enough time to bring this into compliance. Absolutely, sir. I appreciate everybody for your time. Thank you. The same property is coming up. Yeah, isn't it the same agenda item, same pictures? Yeah, number six. Do you agree to the same findings for that so we don't have to go through the evidence? Are you okay? I'm good with the evidence. The finding is not, if I'm not in compliance by the 31st, it's what, $100 a day? It's fine. Are you good with that? Yeah. All right. Yeah, so we just call that case and just say we have an agreement of that. I will stay here and say no objections. Hold on. Let me just do the order for the first one. Thank you. In code 26000604, I make the following findings of fact on law. I find notice is sufficient. I'll find the property in violation. List of code sections. I get the respondent until May 31st, 2026 to bring the property compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. All right, now you can call the next one. Thank you. Case number five, code 26000629, property owner is 222 Ocean North, LLC. Blaine C. Dickinson is the registered agent. The property address is 222 North Ocean Boulevard. Code officer is code enforcement supervisor LaToya Thompson. Hold on a sec. Council Warren, you want to issue that there's an agreement here? Yes, we have agreed with the representative from the property who is in agreement to make a finding that the property was in violation of Luz May 21st to come into compliance. 31st. 31st or a $100 a day. Correct. Is that your agreement? I am. All right. In case 26000629, the respondent has until May 31st to bring the property in compliance or a fine of $100 per day may issue. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. Thank you. Onward and upward. Case number six, IR, code 26000646. The property owner is Edward Intracostal, LLC. The registered agent is NRAI Services, Inc. The property address is 777 East Atlantic Avenue, and the code officer is Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Enforcement Supervisor with the City of Delray Beach, Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding an illicit discharge into the Intracostal Waterway violation located at 777 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach. This violation is irreparable. This violation is irreparable, irreversible. On March 27th, 2026, Code Enforcement received a complaint about a brown discolored water in the Intracostal Waterway. Inspections of the Atlantic Crossing construction site at 777 East Atlantic Avenue in Delray Beach found active dewatering under an approved permit. However, the well point system failed and was not properly controlled, allowing sediment landing water to discharge into the waterway, causing visible discoloration. Further inspections show that the required sediment and erosion control, including a functional tubidity barrier, were either missing and or properly maintained. While the permit authorized the groundwater discharge, it was not authorized to release of the release of sediment and or materials violating the water quality standards. This condition constitutes as an irreparable and irreversible violation of the Section 53.012, Subsection A through Subsection D of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinance. The violation is based on the complete discharge of sediment into the protective waterway. Although dewatering was permitted, the sediment discharge was not authorized. At the time of the discharge, the sediment could not be fully removed and the water could not be restored to its original condition. Therefore, the violation was completed at the time of the discharge and is not subject to cure. A violation was posted at the property April 21, 2026. A magistrate violation was mailed. First class certified mailed posted to City Hall on April 20, 2026. I have a total of 10 photos and two videos I would like to introduce as evidence. I have been in contact with the contractor. What were the communications with the contractor while you were pulling up the photos? We spoke about curing, getting the turbidity barrier fixed. As you will see in my photos, that it was damaged. They gave me further information regarding the situation and notified me that the well point was repaired the same day that it broke. Exhibit 1 is the permit for the dewatering. They had permission to dewater. And that was from the South Florida Water Management District. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Exhibit 2, taken on March 27th, is the color of the intracoastal water, the brown discoloration, which is sediment in the water from the sediment coming out. Exhibit 3 is just a wide shot of the intracoastal waterway taken on March 27th of the brown discoloration of the water. Exhibit 4 is a turbidity barrier. Exhibit 4 is a turbidity barrier with disrepairs to it. Different sections of it wasn't fully doing its job as it was supposed to contain the sediment. This is Exhibit 5, a close-up picture taken on March 27th of the turbidity barrier. Exhibit 6 is another angle of the turbidity barrier, also the discoloration. And where the water would exit, you can't really see it, but the water exits from an area off the wall right here. Exhibit 7, I believe it's the video, no, 9 is the video. Exhibit 7 is a close-up of the turbidity barrier that seems to have issues taken on March 27th. Exhibit 8, another angle of the turbidity barrier that seems to be an issue. However, speaking of them, they let me know that damages was obtained through the manatees that try to, you know, get trapped and try to get loose. So they end up ripping the barrier or Lady Atlantic, certain, however, they are supposed to maintain it at all times. The barrier was damaged by whales? Huh? By manatee? The barrier was damaged by manatee whales? No, no, by the manatee trying to get loose. The manatees will get trapped inside, and they'll try to get loose, and they damage it trying to get out. They'll get trapped inside. Exhibit 9 is a video. Let's see if I can play it for you right now. This was taken on March 27th, 2026. It's the discoloration of the water. Exhibit 10 is also a video of the turbidity barrier, taken on March 27th. Exhibit 11 was the posting of the notice of violation. They did have a notice for the turbidity barrier, but that came into compliance. So the notices were posted on April 21st, 2026. Exhibit 12 is an affidavit of posting. Can you gentlemen tell me your names, please? My name is Jeff Stevens, Project Executive, Atlanta Crossing, Urban 5, Constructors. My name is Michael Hancock. I'm the General Superintendent with Urban 5, Constructors. Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hancock, do you have any objections to the photos and videos the city would like to put in evidence? No objection. Not objection, so admitted. Do you have anything else? No, not from this witness at this point. Do you have any other witnesses? Yes. We have Mr. Cuesta. Could you please set your full name for the record and spell your last name? I'm Cuesta, a stormwater engineer, and spelling my last name, C-U-E-S-T-A. And how long have you been with the city? Two years. And prior to that, what? I was a neighboring city, city of Boynton Beach. And how long? Well, I was an engineer since 2001, but as a municipal engineer, working for municipalities since 2015. And how long have you been located at 226? No, no, 777. 277 East Atlantic Avenue, Georgia, Florida? Yes, I'm aware of another project. And a little bit about this project. This was approved for dewatering, correct? From a separate agency, correct? Right. Well, that permit is for the discharge into the waterways. The city's permit is to discharge into our stormwater system. Correct. It was approved to dewater, and then also a part of that process is a separate city approval to prevent any erosion or sediment from going into the city's stormwater system, correct? That's part of the permit, yeah. And that's part of the permit. And within that part of the permit, are they supposed to use the best practices to prevent what Ms. Thompson described from happening? Yes, best management practices, or BMPs, as I know, to prevent sediment or erosion from leaving the site. And what is required by our code? Are there certain levels that are permitted, or does our code explicitly just say that it can't happen? Well, the contractor, I don't understand the question. What was the question? Well, what's required by our code? Is our code that you can't have this discharge, or does our code allow a certain amount of sediment to go into the waterways? No, you can't discharge any sediment into our stormwater system. And that's why, but obviously, you know, particles may go through, and, you know, it's part of the construction. But as long as the contractor proves that they make an effort, significant effort, by having a secondary containment area or sediment trap, and also, at the point of discharge, a staggered turbidity barrier in case there's a problem that everything is captured or contained within the turbidity barrier. So, let's break back to them. So, in this particular case, I'm not sure if you received the information, or we had discussions with Ms. Thompson, that there was a failure initially with the well points in this case. Right, that's what their letter said, yeah. Okay, so they submitted a letter or document to the city trying to explain what happened. Right, they're supposed to do that per ordinance, yeah. Per ordinance, correct. Right, and within that portion, so we have that first well point, and then I believe you said something about there are a couple of different measures that are supposed to be taken by the property owner within the best practices to prevent the erosion into the city stormwater system, correct? Well, you said a turbidity. Well, for the South Florida Water Management District, they have the requirements of 29 NTUs, which is the level of turbidity, how many suspended particles are. How much dirt is in the water. Right. Right. But we're talking about the city, so within the best practices. No, the city does not have, we do not measure for NTUs. Our objective is best management practices, they need to be in place, and to prevent sediments from leaving the site. And best management practices would mean having multiple layers, correct? And I think one of them is a turbidity barrier, another is something on the ground. Right, each case is different, like it depends on the volume of water that will be discharged, the velocity in which it's going to be discharged. Obviously, here there's quite a bit of dewatering, so they have proposed different layers. Forgive my ignorance here, but what exactly is dewatering? Dewatering is, since they're doing deep excavations for, I guess, for the foundation and also for the parking lot, because of the proximity to the intracosal, the water table and the ground, it's pretty shallow. So for them to excavate, the ground must be fairly dry. So what they do, they install different well points, and they have calculations for that, to basically dry up the ground as far as they're excavating. And that excess water is then discharged? So that they're not digging mud, but dirt, dry dirt, which is less mud. And that excess water is then discharged into the intracosal? That water, right. So from the well, it should go to, there's a pump suctioning the water. Each well point has like a filter suck that prevents dirt from going into the pump. And then from there, it actually goes to a secondary containment area or sediment trap. Because obviously- Where the turbidity barrier is? No, no. No, that's that one. That's before that. So before that, it goes to a tank where whatever particles were suctioned, they will settle there. And from there, they pump into our stormwater system, which then discharges into the intracosal waterway. And since the discharge may create some turbulence, turbidity barriers are installed to prevent the- So that's the last of several precautions that you- That's the last, yeah. From there. So you need multiple failures for this to result in a major discharge of sediment into the- Yeah, and failures can occur, but it's a matter of catching them earlier. In this case, there are multiple failures. So let's start at the beginning of the first failure, right? I believe from the report that they said that, you know, during the excavation operations, a well point was inadvertently damaged. It remains undetected for at least an hour. And when a, let me ask you this question, when a well point is damaged, isn't it true that at that point, soil or dirt can get into the vacuum versus water? Yeah, obviously everything will go in. Correct. And then that's where we have the issue of getting through the silt. You're going to have slurry. You're going to have water with sand or dirt. Or dirt, which the next precaution would be another precaution or the turbidity barrier. So there's multiple failures. Well, at that point, you should be able to see that in the- The tank, right? Sediment trap. Yes. Sediment trap. Correct. The tank. And then if there's a failure then there, then that's- Then we eventually get to the turbidity. Yeah, you stop the pump basically to either isolate that well point and stop that sediment from excessive sediment to- Just so, from the city's point of view, the discharge went on far too long. Is that essentially the city's concern here? That the failure happened and substantial- And discharge happened that should have happened because of the well point, initial well point issue. So, the BMP is the best management practices to prevent these things from happening, are in place. It was a failure. It happened. I wish it could have been monitored more closely. But obviously, based on the pictures, it went too far, yeah. Yeah, I was just going to say, can we talk about the evidence here? I got it. So here, what's here in Exhibit 4, just from your expertise? That's the turbidity barrier. That's supposed to- So, it's like a curtain, and those are the flotation devices to keep them upright. All right. So, like, on the water curtain- Presumably, water goes through, but dirt is contained. Yes. Okay. And then here we go. Like, the water's supposed to be this dark? Not from our- South Florida Water Management District. They have their standards. They require more than 29 NTUs. I was not there to measure what was the NTU. But we're talking about from- We don't require NTUs. We're talking about from the city's code of view. From our point of view, we don't want to see sediment. It's not supposed to be- It's not supposed to look like that. And in any other day, it will look a lot better than that. But obviously, that tells me that there was a failure. So, based on your training and experience and your review of the photographs and the site, this would have been a violation of our city code of order. Right. That's not what we were expecting. Do you gentlemen have questions for either city official? Does the city have anything further? I'm not. What is the city asking for? A one-time fine in the amount of $15,000 to be paid by June 7, 2026, or a lien will be placed on the property until a fine is paid. All right. The floor is yours. I heard a lot about turbidity today. We are hiring, sir. Absolutely, we are hiring. The statement that this was not properly controlled, the South Florida Water Management Permit allows when something happens, it's an imperfect system, but when something happens, as soon as you are aware of it, shut the system down and try to rectify it as best as possible, which we did. We were aware of the issue before the city or before anybody else came out there. Since that time, we improved our inspection of the well points. We have now two turbidity tanks on site managing that water, and we have added a third turbidity curtain to the system, which Ms. Thompson came and verified personally. Part of the problem is it's not only the manatees trying to get out, but they're the ones who are getting in, and they don't always use the same door. So we're managing the manatees as well as Lady Atlantic, who fuels at that dock. How is it that the manatees get inside that curtain? They push through. It's just a curtain hanging from the flotation devices, and the size that they are, they can push right through underneath of it. I'm learning a lot today. So that creates a different problem. Whenever we find a manatee, we need to open it up and get them out. Add to that Lady Atlantic who refuels there and then fires up twin turbo diesels and blows our turbidity curtain all the way to the side, to which I believe we have replaced that at least five times, and the reason why there is three curtains instead of one that is required. I'm sorry, you wanted to add something? No, I was about the manatees. It's just when the tie goes up, the curtain may float a little bit higher, so they find their way. One solution to that, I'm sorry to interrupt, one solution was the latest curtain that we installed has a weighted bottom on it, and it is a 10-foot curtain as opposed to, I think, the previous 6-foot curtain that we had in there as well. So how long did it, I'm just trying to sort of ascertain the gravity of the issue here, so how long did the wellhead problem go before it was detected and corrected? We believe it was about 45 minutes, and I say that because we test the water in the morning, three times before 1 o'clock, and three more times in the afternoon to make sure there is no issue. When we find the issue, again, the water pumps are shut down. We find the problem, fix it before they are started again. Why is the city seeking a max fine here? I would also say at the risk of being argumentative, this is a visual inspector. I've had people far more argumentative than you. There was no testing provided to say whether we were in tolerance with South Florida Water Management or the city of Delray. So it is opinion-driven and not based on facts and testing of the water. Well, I mean, I claim no expertise here, but when I look at the pictures, it does look like a big discharge. So I guess the question I have for you is if you caught this 45 minutes in, why is there so much sediment in the water? I can't answer that. I'm not a water expert, but the soils that are floating take a long time in which to settle. So it goes out, and it's the top layer of the water, and then it will slowly settle down to the bottom. So it is a time issue. Let me ask our water expert here, how would you assess how they handled the issues associated with the failure? I think they handled it pretty well. They made the corrections. I'm not sure about the time. Obviously, when something like that happens, it would be nice to notify engineering so that we can go out and not code enforcement to give us a call. So just the fact that code enforcement was there before us told me there was probably more than one hour because they don't show up in an hour when I call you. But more importantly, based on the failures that occurred, was that within the back? Well, the issue with the turbidity, it's something that they can prove to the South Florida Water Management District. When it comes to the city, it's the BMPs. Do the BMPs worked or not? And if there was a failure, why wasn't the failure contained prior to calling the attention to a massive sediment plume? When you say BMPs, it worked or not? Right. So we have to tank the sediment trap. And why that did not work? That was supposed to capture most of it. Yeah, that's a good question. There's three levels of prevention here, and yet the discharge still happens. So, I mean, I understand the wellhead can fail. What happened with the rest of your prevention here? We believe the turbidity curtains, because of both manatees and the Lady Atlantic, are pulled off of the wall. And what about the tank? Isn't that supposed to catch it, too? Not when a well point breaks. There's a significant amount of water coming into that, and only so much if the gravity system of itself, water's flowing out of that tank just as fast as it's coming in. And when it doesn't have time to settle, some of that sediment does get caught up into the discharge of water. All right. This is what I'm going to do. In 2600646, I'll make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice is sufficient, I find the property did violate the code section listed, including specifically the discharge of sediment into the storm drain system. I'm going to find that said violation is irreverable in nature. I'm going to issue a one-time fine in the amount of $7,500. I'm going to account for the fact that you did take efforts to bring this into control, but I also have to account for the fact that it's a substantial failure and there's a substantial discharge here. So, I'm going to go halfway on this. But I'm going to expect that you gentlemen are going to make sure that I don't see you again, right? This is the first time for this issue, so I'd like to point that out as well. All right. Payable by June 7, 2026. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's it for us, right? Yes. All right. Seeing no further business before us, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.