Special Magistrate - Special Magistrate - Jul 16, 2026

Is the city ready? All right, we hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. Cases will be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless we otherwise note it. If you haven't already, please make sure you have signed in at the front of the chamber. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium here on my left-hand side. The city will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the city presents or to ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence and I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath, under penalty of perjury. So I'm going to ask that if you're going to testify today, or you think you might testify, there's a possibility that you might testify, and ask that you raise your right hand and rise so that you can be sworn in. Anyone that might testify, even if there's a small possibility you might testify, now is your time. By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. All right. Consent agenda. Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. So approved. We don't have any minutes, right? No minutes. I guess we're ready for item one. Case number one, code 26-000690. The property owner is Hessler Family, LLC. The registered agent is Greenberg Law Group, PA. The property address is 4591 West Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Is anyone here on behalf of the Hessler Family, LLC? All right. Come on up. Just a reminder, if you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium over here on my left-hand side. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 4591 West Atlantic Ave, was issued a notice of violation on April 22, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and regular mail sent on May 4, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on May 7, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached. In this case, I've had contact with property owner. The property was cited for 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, landscape maintenance required. 4.6.11, outside storage of materials and similar items. 7.1.3, subsection B, subsection III, handicap accessibility, which complied on July 14, 2026. And 2.2.4, subsection B, certificate of plan. As of July 14, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 25 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 60 days, which would be September 14, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved. How many days were you asking for? 60 days, which would be September 14, 2026. Exhibit 1 is a photo of the front property showing the outside storage on a walkway, which was taken April 15, 2026. Exhibit 2 is a second photo taken of the property, outside storage, and items on blocking accessibility for the handicap and also showing more outside storage towards the rear of property. Exhibit 3, additional photos taken on April 15, 2026 of outside storage, as well as there were landscapes that were removed and then stored outside storage to the rear of property. Exhibit 3 is a closer photo taken on April 15, 2026 of outside storage and missing landscape. Exhibit 5 is additional photos taken of property on April 15, 2026. Exhibit 6, showing full outside storage on racks and as well as where the landscape was supposed to be, there's outside storage. Exhibit 7, additional photos taken on April 15, 2026. Exhibit 8, additional photos taken on April 15, 2026 of outside storage. Exhibit 9 shows where there's no access for handicap access because of all the outside storage on the walkway. Exhibit 10 is an affidavit of posting. Sorry. Exhibit 9 was a posting on May 7, 2026. Exhibit 10 is an affidavit of posting on May 7, 2026. Exhibit 11 is re-inspection on June 26, 2026, showing that the property is not in compliance, it's still outside storage at the time of the photo. Exhibit 12, closer photo taken on 2026 of June. Exhibit 11, there's no access for the handicapped. Go ahead, ma'am. Yes, Ms. Chief, I just wanted to... Which photo? Barbecue item. Barbecue item, grills, correct. So if someone come with a handicap, they're unable to access inside the store, like all that has to be removed. Did you want me to go to the previous exhibit or... No, no, I just wanted to... Exhibit 13, additional photo taken of the sidewalk on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 14 is additional photo taken of the opposite way, taken on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 15, additional photos taken of property on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 16, additional photo taken of outside storage on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 17, this photo taken of the dumpster area on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 18 shows they did put hedges back where it was supposed to be. This photo was taken on June 26, 2026. They were there, they were supposed to be there from the site plan. They had removed them to store outside storage items. So they removed the outside storage items and then they placed those hedges. But they never got... No, ma'am. Exhibit 19 is affidavit of non-compliance from June 26, 2026. Exhibit 20, I took additional photos, which the outside storage was removed from the sidewalk on June 14, 2026. Exhibit 21, show they removed outside storage. And there's, now there's access for the handicap. This photo was taken on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 22, I'm taking, I take, I took a photo of the, directly front of the store on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 23, additional photo taken of the property on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 14, more outside storage was removed. However, this remained on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 25 is the last photo. The outside storage in this area was removed. However, the rack is still there. And then showing more of a clear photo of the landscape, the hedges that were installed to the rear of the property. These are my 25 photo I'd like to submit. And just to be clear, jump off the outside storage. Not on a site plan, and correct. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? I'm sorry? Can you tell me your name, please? Dan Hessler. And sir, are you the owner of the property? I am. On behalf of the Hessler Family LLC? I am. And you lease this to the hardware store? Yes. Yeah. Do you have any objections to the documents or photographs that the city would like to put in evidence? No, I don't. Well, I would like to ask a question, though, if it's okay. Yeah, give me one sec. Without objection, I'm going to accept those into evidence as the city's composite exhibit. You can ask your question, sir. Okay. In regards to the front sidewalk, we had grills there. The ADA calls for 36 inches between two fixed surfaces. And we had 36 inches. So is it different than local code, I guess? If you're asking me to respond, Magistrate Wagner, I believe that you'd have to be approved to do the business outside of the business. And whether that's, you know, in compliance with the ADA or not, that would be a part of the plan review. I guess there's a technical legal question here, which is whether or not they're constituted a violation of the handicapped access. Right. But I guess I was just getting to if it wasn't approved, that's the next step. And if that's something that he wanted permission for, he would have to get with development services for that type of approval. And they seem to be here, right? Correct. But, you know, we can't really have the meeting in the meetings, right? Or not. But I don't. If you want us to answer that specifically, we can. But I just think that it wasn't approved to be outside. The only issue about whether I would need to is whether or not the city is asking me to make a finding that a violation of that particular section occurred. If the city is not pursuing that, then it's not really that relevant. I believe she said that was in compliance to handicapped accessibility. Correct. Correct. As of July 14, 2026. So if the city is not pursuing that, then it doesn't really matter. Though, you know, you might want to know, so somebody probably should tell you. But for my purposes, if the city isn't trying to find a violation of that section, then it doesn't really matter to me. But I get why you'd want to know. Yeah. And the only reason they ask is because if you, like, go to Home Depot, they've got girls out front, like, unbelievable out front. They may well have site plans that approve that, though. So I could ask for an approval on it? Not from me. I'm not that off. No, no, no. I'm just asking. That's something you'd have to discuss with the development. We have our assistant director that would just kind of want to chime in on that. Hi, Amy Alvarez, Development Services. Yes, we can work with you on, you know, what is needed as far as your site plan. The code allows 10% outdoor retail display. So we can look at those parameters and make sure that everything in the areas where you would be approved are in compliance with ADA accessibility. Yeah, I just want to make a comment. Look, I want to be compliant. I want to be a team player. I want more private. I admit the back of the store got out of hand. And if you go in my store, it's immaculate. Everybody comments on that. So Billy looks from the street, and I let it go, and I take full responsibility for it. But I'm just looking to see if there's some way of a compromise where we can sell some things outside as a retail display. So we can do business. We're a local hard work business, so we need to build a sell place. I think what the city is – and stop me if I'm mischaracterizing. The city is not saying that some of these activities couldn't be lawful. They're just saying they have to be done with an approved site plan. Okay. Is that accurate? Yes. We don't have any other witnesses. I don't know if he had a presentation for his case or wanted to make argument. So the city is asking for 60 days. So is 60 days enough time for you to bring this into compliance? What do I need to still do? So what the city is asking me to do is give you 60 days to bring the property into compliance or subject you to a possible fine of up to $250 per day. What I'm asking you, is this 60 days enough time for you to – I'm not clear on what I need to be compliant on still. Officer, what's still outstanding? Remove the remaining outside storage and get with land development with the site plan to figure out what site plan is needed to have either the rack is – Well, the racks can come down. I don't need any more. And as well with the landscape, for the missing landscape you need, the trees in certain areas, you'll have to get with the landscape inspectors. Okay. They'll tell you exactly. I'm not getting an email on that yet. I asked them to send an email. Whenever it's on there, we're going to take care of it. You can meet with that department. He'll specify exactly what's needed. I feel like 90 days might be a better number here. Do you think – I mean – Because he's going to have to probably do some site plan. Well, you tell me. That's fine. I just consulted with our assistant director who said that's fine with the whole review process. Sir, I'm going to push the deadline to 90 days instead of the 60 that the city is asking for. Sometimes it takes some time to do these meetings and to get this right. And it sounds to me like you're trying to bring this into compliance. I absolutely want to. But so I have to get the racks down? And we can have someone, you know. If you – you know what? I'm sure the officer can meet with you and talk you through exactly what the issues are. But I'll give you the 90 days. Okay. Thank you. All right. Code 26000690. I find the following violations as listed except for 7.1.3b3, which has since complied. I give the respondent 90 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $250 per day in my issue. Anyone calculate 90 days? I know we're big dates certain. October 14th. October 14th, 2026. Date certain. All right. Thank you. Case number two. Code 26. 0-0-0-7-6-4. The property owner is Libyan Bernard. The property address is 516 Northwest 48th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 516 Northwest 48th Avenue, was issued a notice of violation on May 27th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on May 28th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on May 27th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached. In this case, I've had contact with property owner. The property was cited for a 2.4.13 building permit for AC wall unit installed. As of July 14th, the property has not come into compliance. I have five photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce. The city is asked an additional 30 days, which will be August the 15th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asked an $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1 was taken on May 27th, 2026, of the AC wall unit installed without building permits. Exhibit 2 was a posting on property on June 1st, 2026. Exhibit 3 is an affidavit of posting, which was posted on June 1st, 2026. Exhibit 4 is a re-inspection of the property. The AC wall unit is still present. Exhibit 5, a noncompliance affidavit, July 1st, 2026. The owner of property did apply for permits on June 16th, 2026, but the permits were not approved yet. As of yet. Do we know why? No, it's in process. It hasn't been approved yet. Do you think 30 more days is going to be enough time? Do we know? I guess to some degree we have to know why they're not approved yet. But I can find out. Should I? If you want, we get checked to see what the comments are, to see where they are in the approval stage. I was just asking the supervisor if he can check to see if it's, you know, sometimes, you know, a lot of times we're waiting on comments from the applicant. We're often than not. That's usually the reason. So we just wanted to see where it was. The last time when I checked the comments, they were missing a document, which I spoke to him, and he said he was going to have either his HC tech or himself was going to come and submit some additional documents. After that, I don't know if he corrected that. That was the last time I've checked. That seems like a good question to ask him. That was like last week. Let me just ask you. I assume you want to submit these in evidence, one through five? Yes. Sir, can you tell me your name? Libyan Bernard. Mr. Bernard, do you have any objection to these photographs or documents? No. All right. Without objection, so admit it. So where are we on the permit? There was a last paper that was asked me, but I already downloaded, sent it to the city already. When did you do that? I think we were doing it last week, last Tuesday, and they all said, like, my electricity tech said, like, they've been approved from the city when it was downloaded. But after that, like, I don't know anything going on yet. But so far, I know the one that you asked me, I would be sending to you guys already. Mr. Provisor Oliva, do we know what the status is? I'm looking it up now, sir. It's slow, but. Well, it seems to me. I'm not sure how much time do we think he needs. Maybe we can. Yeah. I mean, it seems to me if we're down to, you know, one document that he's already submitted, 30 days, seems pretty reasonable to me, unless there's a reason not to think so. I agree. That's what the city would recommend. Yeah, it says the review is complete on the status, so it should be, what was it, 30 days, you were saying? Yeah, 30 days. Yeah, that ought to be plenty. Sir, I'm going to extend. I'm going to give you, I'm going to find that there's a violation, but I'm going to give you 30 days to bring into compliance. It sounds like you're almost there. I would just check back with the billing department, also with the code officer, can give you some help just to make sure that everything gets complied before the end of 30 days. I've seen many times in these cases where people think everything is done, and then they don't pay any attention to it, and it's not complied, and then fines start rolling, and I don't want to see that happen to you. It seems like you're pretty close. Just make sure that the approval comes through, and if you have questions, ask the code officer, and she can give you some direction, okay? Thank you. All right. In case 26000764, I make the following findings of fact on life I notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of 2.413B, building permits, for the missing permit on the AC. Responder has 30 days to come to compliance, or August 15, 2026, or a fine of up to $100 per day, ma'am. Thank you. Case number three, code 26000783. The property owner is Carl F. Vuela. The property address is 2839 Angler Drive, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of... I'm sorry, officer, just before you start. Is there anyone here on behalf of Carl F. Vuela? I'm sorry. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. The property 2839 Angler Drive was issued a notice of violation on June 2, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and regular mail on June 3, 2026. In addition, both the property and the city hall were posted on June 3, 2026. In addition, excuse me, an affidavit of posting is attached. In this case, I have not been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for 7.8.3, maintenance of the building, 4.6.13, subsection 8, subsection 2, parking commercial on private, 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection 1, landscape maintenance, and 4.6.16, subsection H, subsection 1, subsection E, sodding of the right-of-way. As of July 14th, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 14 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which would be August the 15th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1, taken on June 2nd, 2026. How long was that sitting out there? I identified this on June 2nd. I took the photo and immediately issued a notice of violation. From June 2nd, I can't tell you how long it's been out there, but as soon as I identified it, I issued a notice of violation. Exhibit 2 is showing additional trash on the roof and outside items to the left of the property. Exhibit 3, taken on June 2nd, 2026, showing the front of property and the address. There's other items like drums, carpet. Exhibit 3, it was a posting posted on property on June 3rd, 2026, and there's washers, drums, and items outside the front driveway. Exhibit 5 is affidavit of posting, which is June 3rd, 2026. Exhibit 6 was a re-inspection on June 28th, 2026. Trash is still present and on the roof as well. Exhibit 7 was taken on June 28th, 2026, a different angle from the street view. Another photo taken from the street view. Exhibit 8 is showing there's landscape that's damaged on the property as well as the right-of-way. They have to apply sodding, and as well, there's pallets that need to be removed as well as the trailer. Exhibit 9, taken on June 28th, 2026, taking a closer photo. The pallets need to be removed off the property. Exhibit 10, taken another angle from the street view of the property on June 28th, 2026. Exhibit 11 is noncompliance affidavit attached on June 28th, 2026. Was the trailer still there? It was still there, my last re-inspection. Thank you, Ms. Jean-Breathe. Just to kind of go through the different violations that we have on this property. So we have the maintenance of buildings and all those items that you went through, some of the stuff at the beginning. I know in the beginning you said you don't know exactly when they removed it, but it was definitely there, correct, when you did your initial inspection. And in fact, there was at least one bag left toward or after your compliance, correct? Yes. And then you have the items on the roof, just overall general maintenance of the building. And then you have the parking on the sod issue, it's obvious, this area where this vehicle is parked. Yes, they have to apply sod. That's not a part, to just be clear, that's not a driveway nor an extended approved driveway. Not an extended driveway. Just they have, where all the landscape is damaged, they have to apply sod on the right-of-way and the property as well. So, informally, that's supposed to look like the rest of the lawn, it's just supposed to be grass, correct? Yes. And then you have the other issue of the sod missing and the right-of-way. Yes. And homeowners are supposed to maintain the right-of-way in accordance with our city ordinances, correct? Yes. And LDRs, all right. And then just overall. So, as of today, as we sit here and after the compliance date, all four of the violations were still out of compliance, correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the exhibits into evidence. Without objection, so admitted, what is the building maintenance issue? They have to remove the maintenance of buildings, the trash, they have to remove the items that's on a property, the drums, the carpet, the pallet, that material there. They have to clean up, like remove everything, outside storage, everything. It's not really building maintenance. I mean, I think it's covered by your other sections, no? Well, this is the one that we felt that was most appropriate. But if you read the code section, the code text of it. It does say secure and sanitary. Correct. Is that where you're going? Yeah. That's exactly what I was going to say. You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you. Okay. One more time. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? All right. In case 26-0-0-0-7-8-3, I make the following findings a fact in life. If I notice it's sufficient, I find the property in violation of the four listed code sections. I adopt by reference the testimony of the code officers and the nature of those violations. I give the respondent until August 15, 2026 to bring the property in compliance. We're a fine of up to $250 per day, ma'am. Thank you. Case number four. Code 26-0-0-0-7-8-7. The property owners are Leonard J. Salvaggio Revocable Trust, where Leonard J. Salvaggio is the trustee. The property address is 415 Homewood Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Is anyone here on behalf of Leonard J. Salvaggio? Okay. For the record, I see no one. Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement Chantel Jean-Baptiste with the city of Derry Beach. This property, 415 Homewood Boulevard, was issued a notice of violation on June 2, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on June 5, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on June 7, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for 4.6.19, subsection E, subsection 1, vegetation removal permit. As of July 6, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have 7 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be August 15, 2026, 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. I'm so sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Jean-Baptiste. But we also wanted to notate that the permit was just issued. It was just issued. So, outside. Hold on one moment. I was just advised that the supervisor they would like to close off the case. Thank you. Thank you. Justin. Dismissed. Thank you. Okay, so we're closing. Okay, thank you. Okay, now for the next four cases, these are being heard together? Yes. So, we're requesting that case number 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 be heard together. It's basically five units on one plat, but they're platted separately. So, it's literally the same facts, same pictures. So, we just want to hear them all at once. Thank you. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yes. My name is Sam Kirzner. And did you want to call out the case numbers? I can. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now, call in cases 5 through 9, Code 26-000-816, Code 26-000-817, Code 26-000-818, Code 26-000-819, and Code 26-000-820. The owners for all said properties are Artist Alley Townhouse, LLC. The registered agent is Registered Agents, Inc. And the code officer on the case is Haney's Batista Hernandez. Mr. Kirzner, what is your position with Artist Alley Townhomes? I'm a member of an LLC that's a member of Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC. So, you're a subsidiary? I'm a natural person that's a member of an LLC that's a member of the LLC. I'm sorry. Again, I'm a member of an LLC that's a member of Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, which owns this property. Yeah. So, you're representative of a company that's a subsidiary of the LLC. Correct. I'm here for Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC today. Correct. And they authorized you to be here? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Special Magistry. My name is Haney's Batista Hernandez, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Delray Beach, Clean and Safe Division. I'm here today regarding violations of overgrown landscape and construction site maintenance at 216, 218, 220, 222, and 224 Northeast 4th Street, Delray Beach, Florida. On June 25 to 226, I conducted an inspection of the property located at 216, 218, 220, 222, and 224 Northeast 4th Street. During my inspection, I observed the construction site had not been maintained in violation with the city minimum maintenance required and construction and demolition site regulations. The inspection was conducted for the public right away outside of the boundaries of the approved construction site where the violations were clearly visible. Upon review of the land development regulations of the City Code of Ordinances, these conditions constitute to violation of Section 4.16, Subsection I, Subsection I, Subsection I, and Section 51.45, Subsection I, of the City of Delray Beach, Code of Ordinances, LDR. A notice of violation was created on June 25, 2026, with a compliance date set for July 10, 2026. A notice of violation was posted on the property on June 27, 2026. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent via certified mail and first-class mail and posted to City Hall on June 29, 2026. A re-inspection conducted on July 11, 2026, and the property had not complied. However, on July 15, 2026, I met with the property manager, Sam, who's here today. He had completed some work on the property, but had still not fully been in compliance. As of today's hearing, the violation had not been fully corrected. I have 17 documents to present into evidence. The City is requesting 30 days for the property to come in compliance, if not a shift within the 30 days, a $250 fine per unit, which equals to $1,250 daily fine. If the fine remains unpaid after the time allowed, the City requests that the order be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County, where it should constitute a lien against the property in accordance with Chapter 162 of Florida's statutes. That's a different hearing. Okay. This would be the Papa for all of them, and this is the Sun Vis. Exhibit 3 is one of the sides of the property. That would be 2024. This is the back of the same property, 2024. This is the other side, which is one of the main reasons why we're here today. There you can see the landscape, which is the back. Exhibit 7 is also the back. That's the posting, affidavit of posting, which was posted on the 27th of June. So before we go on, can you go back to the last photograph? Yes, ma'am. So just for clarification, these photographs were taken during your initial inspection on June 25th? Yes, ma'am. So those 1 through 7. Yes. Well, I guess the pictures of the property, right? And these photographs apply to all case numbers. Yes, ma'am. Case number 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, correct? Yes, ma'am. On the docket. All right. Thank you. This is the affidavit of posting. That's the posting on June 27th. That's the affidavit of noncompliance, Exhibit 11. Exhibit 12 is a picture of the whole property that was taken on the 11th. This one, it's Exhibit 13. That's actually the property to 16. Exhibit 15, it's the side of 2024. Exhibit 16, it's the other side. Exhibit 17 is the back. You could see the fence needs work and the overgrown. At this time, the city would like to introduce the exhibit to evidence. Sir, do you have any objection to those photographs or documents? I don't, other than I'm not sure that based on the photographs, we can conclude that each and every one of the individual lots are not in compliance. I don't know that they're clearly marked in that way. So, the way the property is set up, and I wish we had a picture of the property appraiser. So, as I kind of stated in the beginning, everything's on one specific lot that's owned by the property, and then they have different plats. So, just collectively, I'm not sure if he's asking which one of the areas, but it's kind of unique because they're all platted separately and it's one building, and it's kind of like all around the area. Well, just to make this concrete, we're asking, or sorry, the city is asking for a separate $250 fine for each and every one of the individual plots. I, from my interpretation of the evidence, I don't see that each and every one of those individual plots is not in compliance. I see general pictures, but I don't know that each and every one of those plots is not in compliance. I'll also... Yeah, I think as a practical... Well, first of all, for the record, I'm going to accept those documents and photos into evidence. I think as a practical question, there clearly was a violation that existed at some point. I don't contest that, but I don't know... As a practical matter, if the city is going to come back and try to assess the fine in, I guess they wanted to give you 30 days, but if they're going to come back and assess the fine, you could make the argument that, you know, these plots are in compliance and this one isn't, right, or based on whatever their evidence is. So, I think that's really sort of an issue for another day, because I don't think there's any issue that all of them were in noncompliance at some point, right, so the violation did exist. You may have brought them into compliance at some point, but at this point, I mean, you know, I don't think it would preclude me from making a violation statement, but go ahead. I don't know that I could concede that all of them were in violation, but there was apparently some violation. As far as the question of whether we could introduce them into evidence, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be okay with the caveat, with the statement that I just made. Okay. I don't think that would be a form of an argument for a finding, you know. Yeah, the question of admission is if there's something fundamentally wrong. You can argue about what they mean, right? You know, admitting them into evidence doesn't mean they have to be interpreted one way. It's just that they're in evidence, which I'm fine with. Does the city have anything further they want to present? No. Officer Batista Hernandez, what is outstanding in your view since the last time you were, I guess you were there yesterday? I was there yesterday, and he did do some work. However, the side of the building is still not in compliance. The fence, it's Nate's work because half of them, it's down. He does still have to do landscape maintenance, and he has to fix the other side of the construction site. Like, all the construction material that they're using, they're just laying there. It looks, doesn't look how it's supposed to be according to the city ordinances. What's it supposed to look like? It's supposed to look nicely, neat, and everything is just strong there. Stacked and orderly, right? Yes, sir. You know, I'm so sorry. We did have a concerned neighbor. She just wanted to say something about the property. It's your case. Do I walk away? How does this work? No, you can stay. We have another seat. You're fine. Over here. Or if it's easy for you, I can, you know what, I'll come to you. You're fine. Okay. So, good afternoon. Could you please spell your full name and give us your address? Yes, my full name is Therese Tavano, T-H-E-R-E-S-E. Last name is Tavano, T-A-V as in Victor, A-N as in Nancy. And are you familiar with the property located near the 216 Northeast 4th, the 218 Northeast 4th, that whole unit that we're looking at here? I am. I am, and I frequently go by that abandoned building often. And you live in that area? And I live in that area. Okay. So, and I've spoken to several other residents in the city of Delray, in the local area. And they're quite concerned over the fact that it's deteriorating, and it has deteriorated immensely. Ma'am, I'm happy to hear what you think. I don't really want to hear what other people have told you. Oh, well, I'm telling you what I think. Okay. So, that's me. So, how about this? You tell us what your observations are and what your concerns about the nature or the condition of the property. Okay. Can I ask or can I find out when is this going to be completed? No, we just want to know what you saw. Oh, what I saw. Okay. What you see, what you've heard, what you know about the property. What I saw is what was done yesterday with the reference to cleaning up the sides of the building and whatever, and some of the landscaping. Before you saw the cleanup, what did you see? What was that? What was it that concerned you about the property that made you want to come here and talk? The tops that were placed all around the fence, they're all ripped and hanging. And partially, the fence was never completely covered. So, the tarps. The tarps. Okay. No. All right. Yeah. Was there anything else you saw? Yeah, and the weeds and all kinds of growth underneath the tops is coming out onto the sidewalk. And I happened to go there and take a picture of the violation notice and forget it. You don't want to know that. But okay. Thank you. Okay. It's just a concerned person, and I feel that I think the building has been abandoned, and it should be taken care of or taken down. Thank you so much. That's my opinion. I appreciate you coming in, ma'am. Oh, there's a question about, you know, the different plaques or if we're ready to get into argument. Let me give the respondent a chance to present his side. Well, I'm not sure if there's anything to respond to. Obviously, we're not insensitive to the needs of the public. And as Hanis said, I came and did the work yesterday. It's apparent that it was not brought fully into compliance, but I was advised by Hanis about this yesterday. I'm going to continue to do the work to bring it into compliance as best I can. Are there people out there working on this property? Right now? Not at this moment, but it's very possible I'll go there right after this hearing and continue the work. Did you mean is this a construction site? Yeah. Oh, no. It's not an active. There's no active construction. It's not an active construction. That's why the outside thirds, the overall, that's all of this is an issue. Oh, okay. Well, that does change things. Is there anything else you want to tell me, sir? No. The city has asked me to give you 30 days. Is that a sufficient amount of time for you to accomplish what you need to do here? I believe that should be sufficient. I'm not sure, though. I think that some of the issues that were just raised by Hanis were not in the original violation notice, so I just want that to be reflected in the record. With respect to the fence, I don't believe that there's any reference to any issues with the fence in the original violation notice, so I don't know what the procedure is. I don't know if I have to receive a new one, a new notice. I'm perfectly happy to take care of that. I just would like that to be reflected in the record. We talked about the debris, the scrap, the... It's landscaping and materials. So, you know, look, I just spoke to the supervisor. We can stick to what we have here. The city will continue to review and watch the property. If there are any additional violations, we'll bring it to your attention. Okay. That's fair. I don't know if this is the time or the place, but if you can clarify with respect to the tarp, it was mentioned by the concerned neighbor that there's an issue with the tarp. I don't know if that... Right. I mean, we're fine with saying this is materials and landscaping as we sit here today. That's just an observation of the witness. We never presented that, you know, in the case. So what the city is saying is they're pursuing the landscaping and the materials that are improperly stored on the property. Those are the issues that are before me today. And we think that 30 days is more than enough time to fix. For that, I would think so, too. That should be fine, yes. All right. So in code cases 5 through 9, as already announced, I'm going to make the following findings of fact. And the law fine notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of the listed code section, specifically the maintenance of the area as well as the outside storage. A respondent has 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $250 per violation, per case, may issue. And just for clarifications, I know we presented this all as one. Can I just ask before you conclude your order, we just want to have a finding that each one of the individual property address parcels, can you confirm that you complied with the notice requirements for each parcel? Yes. Correct? I posted all of them independently. All of them. You know, we didn't necessarily present each individual one into evidence, but I just wanted to at least get that on the record through her testimony. So, Officer Batista Hernandez, you noticed each of these properties properly? Yes, sir. And your observation was on each of these properties? Yes, sir. In each of them, we mail certified mail. Thank you. All right. Good luck, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 10, code 26-000781. The property owner is Jenny Mae Merchant. The property address is 2888 Angler Drive. The code officer on the case is Joseph Oliva. And the case will be presented by Erin Kester. So, Joseph, if you can make your introduction about interning and observations. Yes. My name is Joseph Oliva. I'm the code supervisor. And this is Aaron Kessler. He is a code officer intern. And he's going to be presenting my case for me. And he observed everything with you, correct? Yes. He observed everything. He took all the photos. He wrote the violation. Yes. Thank you. Well, before we start, just, uh, is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? In this case, Jenny Mae Merchant. All right. For the record, uh, I don't see anyone. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. Hold on a second. Is there somebody here? No. There's nobody here. Okay. All right. For the record, there's nobody here. All right. Go ahead. There's a lot of people here. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. I, Aaron Kessler, Code Enforcement Officer Intern for the City of Delray Beach, am presenting this case for Joseph Oliva, Code Enforcement Officer Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach. Case code, code 26000781. This property, 2888 Angler Drive, was issued a notice of violation on June 3rd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on June 3rd, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on June 4th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for code 7.1.5, numbering of buildings and structure, code 7.8.3, maintenance of buildings required, and code 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, landscape maintenance general. As of July 15th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached nine photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The City is asking for 30 days for the property to come into compliance by August 15th, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, then the City is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved. No, it's the repeated. It's for all the five flat. Oh, it's all the five, yes. Oh, there we go. That was very good. It looked like the same fit lumbered over again. Yeah, that's what it was. It's timely. Yes. Exhibit one is the property appraisal detail. Which lists the property owner, correct? Yes. Thank you. The Janie Mae merchant. Merchant Janie Mae is the name of the property owner. Exhibit two is the address of the property. And on the mailbox, it was not located on the structure, which I will also show in another photograph. Exhibit three is the structure itself, absent of the letters, as well as the dead trees, which needed removal. They have since removed the trees. They did not, however, apply for the appropriate permits. This is the main structure. You can see the maintenance needed is the garage area, as well as the fascia board above the garage is in need of maintenance, as well as a little bit of landscape could use resodding. And there's the absence of the numbering for the house, which is required by fire department. Exhibit five is the picture of the posting of the property. And exhibit six is the affidavit of posting mailing. Exhibit seven is a re-inspection on July 13th, 2026, showing that the trees have been removed. However, no permit has been applied for at that time or now. Exhibit eight is the property itself, showing that the repair to the structure and the numbering still had not been completed, also on July 13th. And this is the affidavit of noncompliance, is exhibit nine. I would like to introduce these nine items into evidence. Without objection, so admitted. So we got two dead trees, some missing numbers, and a couple of dirty buildings. Essentially what we got? Yes. 30 days seems reasonable? Yes. Seems reasonable to me, too. All right, case, just out of curiosity, have you had any contact with the property owner in this case? No, they have not reached out to us. All right, case 26-0-0-0-7-8-1. I make the following findings of fact on life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of the three listed code sections. I give the respondent until August 15th, 2026 to come to compliance or find up to $100 per day in May issue. Good job. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 11, code 26-0-0-0-7-2-7. The property owner is 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue, LLC. The property address is 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson. Before we begin, can we swear in Ms. Hoyland, please? By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson, Code Supervisor with the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding exterior, interior alteration made to historic property without the required building permit and certificate of appropriateness. On March 4th, 2026, Code Enforcement was notified by Development Service staff that the interior, site-related, and exterior alterations as well as changes to the building layout have been made to the historic property located on 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida without a building permit, site plan application, or a certification correction, certificate of appropriateness. An investigation was conducted using online imagery to document the property, followed by an on-site inspection. During the inspection, the Historic Preservation Division staff confirmed that the alteration has been made to the site and the building without requiring approval. These conditions constitute violations of the City of Delray Beach land development regulations, including Section 2.4.10, Subsection A, Subsection 1, Site Plan Application, Section 2.4.12, Subsection A, Subsection 1-5, Certificate of Appropriateness, and Section 2.4.13, Building Permit. I have 31 photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was issued May 6, 2026. The violation was male first class certified male and posted to City Hall on May 15, 2026. The compliance date was required by June 17, 2026 and July 1, 2026. The violation was posted to the property on May 14, 2026. The case was rescheduled on July 16, 2026. It wasn't ready to go to a hearing, so the violation was reposted on the property July 4, 2026. The violation was mailed first class certified male and posted to City Hall on June 29, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted June 20, 2026. The property located on 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue. It was observed that a Level 1 Site Plan had been submitted. However, additional corrections were and are required for sufficiency. Additionally, the certificate of appropriateness application was voided in the system. Therefore, the property remains out of compliance. Why was it voided? Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner, Development Services. Could you repeat the statement, please, Ms. Thompson? I did a re-inspection on June 20th. Not that far back, the part about the voiding. Oh, it said, additionally, the certificate of appropriateness application was voided. The site plan was observed in the system, needing, requiring corrections for sufficiency. I'm not sure about the voided part. I don't remember talking about that. Yeah, that's the first time I've heard that term. Yeah, that's weird. You can't. Sorry. Not yet. When she's, Ms. Thompson's done, I can speak to what's happening currently in the process if you want. I think we can say the following, which is that a certificate of appropriateness has not been issued yet. Correct. Okay. So maybe we'll stick with that. I'm sorry. Is there anything further, officer? Compliance required for this address is a submission of sufficient certificate of appropriateness and site plan application on or before August 19th, 2026. Failure to comply by that date will result in a daily fine of $1,000. Additional compliance also to apply for an obtained and approved issue permit on or before November 30th, 2026. Failure to comply with that will result in a daily fine of $1,000. All right, so the city is asking for an August 19th compliance date for the certificate of appropriateness and the submission of the site plan and then November 13th for the building permit. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So, Ms. Thompson, as a part of your investigation and review of this case, I believe you said earlier that this was initially brought to your attention by the, you know, the Development Services Department, correct? Yes, ma'am. And they provided you with specific photos that, so when you're going through the exhibits, if you can identify the ones that were provided to you so we can mark them for identification purposes. And we'll have the employee from Development Services, you know, authenticate them. But just if you can note that in your presentation. Exhibit 1 through 19 was taken by the Historic Preservation. Okay. But you can go through them if you're familiar. Not quite. Okay. So what can we call you? We'll recall you, Thompson. Exhibit 20 through 31 will be my exhibits. So what we'll do is we'll recall you as a witness, and we'll go to Ms. Hoyland for now. Yes, ma'am. That'll be easier. All right. Good afternoon, Ms. Hoyland. How are you? Good. I believe you introduced yourself previously to us. And as a part of your duties and responsibilities, review applications for, and kind of being familiar with historic properties located within the city of Darby. Yes. And are you familiar with the property located at 401 North East 2nd Avenue? Yes. Which district is this property in? The Delita Park Historic District. Maybe you can just briefly tell us a little bit about this property. This property is zoned RM, I believe, or RL perhaps. It's multifamily, bottom line. There are nine apartment building or apartment units within two buildings on the site. There's actually two structures. This is a contributing historic structure built in the 20s, 30s era in the Spanish colonial style or mission revival. Mediterranean revival is another style. It's similar here. And the property owner who previously owned it passed away. New owners purchased it. Perhaps it was 2022, 2023 timeframe. It has a parking lot right on the corner of Lake Ida and Northeast 2nd Avenue. So it's the first property you see as you enter into the Delita Park Historic District. And I'm now showing you what's previously marked at City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Did you take this photograph? Yes. And what led you to take this photograph? So my team and I had been contacted by the property owner to inquire about the process for renovation and updating to the site. So when we were, we call those pre-application meetings. And typically we go out and visit the site so that we can familiarize ourself with the property. I believe that this photo, when I took this, an application had already been made to change the windows around the entirety of the building. And we were doing a site visit to inspect what the condition of the current windows were. 2023. So this is just to give context on what the property initially looked like before any modifications were made, correct? Yes. This is the secondary structure that houses a number of garage units on the ground floor and then a residential unit on the second floor. This is the south elevation of that same accessory building facing Lake Ida Road. Yes. From that and out of the floor. Yes. We've made several. This was the March 2023 timeframe. Same with this photograph. You can see here the windows had wood surrounds. They were wood windows. You can see a stucco exterior. That's a roof scupper at the top above the window, which drains the water from the roof. Okay. Citizen exhibit five. So when I walked up to the building to take a closer photograph of the larger main building, I was trying to take a photograph of the window. And my photograph showed the interior, which was fully demolished. Um, and we hadn't been made aware of this activity. Citizen exhibit six. A blurry bit, a bit blurry photo, but a similar, um, photograph. This was taken a few days later, um, looking in through an upper opening where we could see the upper floor also. Citizen exhibit seven. Same site visit with the interior demolition. Citizen exhibit eight. Same timeframe, and this is showing a refrigerator on the front porch and other construction materials, a sofa, um, from that April 4th timeframe. But it's also showing the condition of what the property in general was, correct? Yes, on the exterior. All right. Citizen exhibit nine. Um, same description as previous. Citizen exhibit ten. This is the south side of the building. That's one of the windows I had walked up to to take the photograph. Citizen exhibit eleven. This is taken from the street, um, of the gravel parking lot that existed at that time. Citizen exhibit twelve. This was later in September, so we had had, um, meetings with the applicant prior to this, um, and they had actually gone to the historic preservation board to request replacing the windows. The board reviewed the request and indicated that they needed to keep the wood surrounds, um, and denied the request because what the applicant was proposing was not compatible, um, and consistent with the requirements of the LDRs for contributing structure. So it was denied. The applicants then came in and submitted a building permit to replace the windows, and they didn't comply. I don't know how else to say, like, they complied. So let's just go back so we're clear. These are the original properties. Yes, yes. So when we're talking about, we're talking about the green area. Correct. Around the windows. That's correct. All right. And then here we are, and this is what the property looks like back in September 2012, and this was denied. By the historic preservation board for what they were trying to do. So, yes, the, this was the request. It was denied. The applicant submitted for a permit, and I, I don't, I wish I had a better way to say this, but they did it anyway. Exhibition, uh, city's exhibit 13. Same exact photograph. You can see the wood surrounds are not there. The mutton pattern, which are the grids on the windows, they're different than what was original. This is exhibit 14. This is just another. Yes, this is the front, actually, the west side of the building facing northeast 2nd Avenue, and the windows that were installed were not executed as designed on a permit. This is the, this actually, you can see these windows in the upper floor there. That was a screen enclosure that they enclosed with windows. That did not get an approval COA or site plan modification. And also, could you please go back? You can see a concrete blocked in section of wall where a door was enclosed there. There's windows on the upper floor. There were all kinds of exterior alterations made that did not go through review with the board. This is the same time period where the windows were being replaced. These actually, the grid patterns are closer to original, but we're still missing the wood surrounds on these. And just, just, city's exhibit 17. And so now this, which was a month later in October, is the entire stucco pattern on the building. The historic, we call it almost frosting. So it has that really kind of thick appearance. The stucco was completely stuccoed over, which is not standard practice and requires approval by the board to do so. Same here. There was just exterior alterations. In this one, there's an awning added above the doorways. The railings have been replaced, again, without approval from the board. Clarify. The older pictures from 2023 and so on, that was just to give context of what, a little bit of a history of the property and what was approved, what hasn't been approved, and what it looked like. Correct? Yes. This has been ongoing with these applicants trying to. You talked about 18. What about 19? A zoomed-in picture of 18. Okay. Perfect. All right. So, City's Exhibit, what is this? This is LaToya's, yes. All right. At this time, the city would like to introduce City's Exhibit 1 to 19. And to evidence. Thank you. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Oh, my name is Simeone Kirilov. I'm the architect that was hired to help him get all these applications. Can you spell your last name for me, sir? K-I-R-I-L-O-V. Kirilov. And you're an architect, Simeone? Yes. And the respondent knows that you're here on their behalf? Yes. Do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence so far? All right. So, I'll admit 1 through 19. I think they have a few more, and then I'll let you. Sure. So, we're going to, at this time, I'd like to recall Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson, I'm now showing you where it's previously Martinus City's Exhibit 20. And what is this photograph, and why is it significant to the case? This photograph was obtained from Realtor.com of the interior of the property, which I stated before, exterior, interior, site, were all alterations done without permit and the certificate of appropriateness. So, this was pulled from Realtor.com. This, I believe, is a kitchen area. So, we, and just to be clear, we know that this is a modification because of an earlier photograph we saw with just kind of like wood studs that Ms. Hoyland talked about, correct? Yes, ma'am. And did you search to confirm that there were no approvals for this? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. You can proceed. Exhibit 21 is another photo of the inside that looks like a closet and a mirror. Exhibit 22 is just another photo of the kitchen. Exhibit 23 is a photo of the living room area. Exhibit 24, another photo of the kitchen. So, before you go on from those photographs, is it within your standard course of business to check online Realtor sites for property listings when you're doing investigations? Yes, ma'am. And did you indeed confirm that the address is indeed that property? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Exhibit 25 is the notice, posted notice, the first one, taken on, posted on May 14th. Exhibit 26 is just a photo of the address taken on May 14th. Exhibit 27 is the post-in for May 14th. Exhibit 28 is the non-compliant for May 20th. I mean, correction, June 20th. Exhibit 29 is a reposting on July 4th. Exhibit 30 is a picture of the address 401, taken on July 4th. And Exhibit 31 is just the affidavit of post-in for July 4th. At this time, the city would like to introduce Exhibit 2231 into evidence. Do Carol have any objection? No. Not objection? So admitted. So, thank you, Ms. Thompson. And you stated earlier that this came in from a complaint from the Development Services Department, correct? Yes, ma'am. So, I just want to recall Ms. Hoyland, just ask her a couple questions about the pictures. So, as we look at the property today, is this, was this approved? No. None of the evidence in Ms. Thompson's presentation has been approved on any of the exhibits. The only thing that has been approved are windows. Again, the windows were not executed correctly. So, there was an approval from the board that they didn't apply with the directive? No. So, the board denied the request, the COA site plan request for the windows. They denied it. Then the applicant submitted a building permit. And that building permit was to be executed the way they were supposed to be, with the wood surrounds and the grids and all that. That permit was issued, which we can approve administratively. So, if you want to come and replace windows, we're not sending you to the board. If you're doing like and kind and maintaining the character that's on the building. So, that's what the permit was approved for. But then when they executed the installation, they did not execute it correctly. They did what they wanted to do. We've also had eight meetings. So, they did what the board told them they couldn't do. Correct. And we have had eight meetings spanning from February 2023 through April of 2026, either with the home owners or the, I'm sorry, the building owners, with them and their architect. And some phone calls with an attorney at one point that was going to be engaged, but then didn't get engaged. So, over the course of this time, because it's been a while, we keep getting told that an application is forthcoming and that it doesn't happen. And then more changes happen. So, we're here today. Yeah, we're here, yeah. So, I'm guessing I can sense the city's frustration by the request for a $1,000 a day fine. Yeah. It's almost as if I can read these things. So, do you have anything further? The city seems very unhappy with your client, Mr. Karolov. Yeah. So, what's going on here? I, honestly, I couldn't tell you what is going on. But I can give a little bit of history because we were one of the first architects that were contacted to get the interior permit. So, our office did the drawings for the original COA, which did get denied by the board. So, then we did the drawings for the interior renovation, which I believe was submitted. And I don't know if the permit was issued. I think the permit, something happened with the permit because of the window issue that the interior permit was never closed out. But I know they pulled a permit for the interior work because we did respond to comments and we did adjust the drawings. But once it goes into construction, it's out of our hands as the architects are. I really don't know what happens afterwards. So, I can't really say what happened between after I did the interior permit and then what the – Well, wouldn't the interior have to go through the – Not the interior because interior does not have to go through historic, but I'm not – Every permit comes through historic, yeah. Yeah. That's my recollection. Yeah. But I don't think – I've been here long enough to know that they – I don't think the interior needs board approval, does it? Yes. So, I'm – Am I able to respond to this? Yeah. So, if – I think you're the only one that can. Yeah. If there's alterations made on an interior, there has to be an interior demolition permit and then there has to be a myriad of permits, not just windows, AC, you know, or sub-permits. You have to have a whole permit submitted, which the historic team does review like any other zoning reviewer does. So, it's not – it's just that we're reviewing the historic ones. We're current plannings reviewing the non-historic ones. Did you have a chance to review the interior permit on this case? So, there are not – there is not an interior demolition permit that was submitted and the extent of what occurred on the interior, there was not a permit for that. And when we were talking to the applicant, they stated, oh, we'll just submit it as part of the window permit. And we explained, you're doing more than a window permit. This is structural, plumbing, electric, mechanical, so your full MEP package. You know, this is what we were trying to handhold and help explain, just get it submitted because we think it can be approved. But the question the applicant has is would it go to the board? If there was – we would have to review it. If there was any bedrooms changed or layout changes that happened on the interior, then possibly because then we'd look at parking. But it's possible it could be administrative COA. So, this is where the coordination – we were just really trying to help guide them so we can get this project off our desk as well. And we just – we haven't been able to get there. I will note that there is a COA site plan application that's been started in the system. It has not escalated high enough to review because there's missing documentation. So, the process began, but we are waiting for a response to comments for minimum sufficiency. How are they going to get a COA on windows that haven't – that are clearly not consistent with what the board approved? Well, they will have to make the request, go to the board, coordinate that with the board. And the board may say you need to be in compliance, whether it's cutting out some of the stucco to put in the wood surrounds or some other solution. But staff does not have that authority to make that call. Okay. So, all right. I just wanted to note, too, that the permit that was submitted, there were some things of replacement of – drywall and windows, but did not include plumbing. And you can clearly see in one of those photographs. I don't know if you could go back to the – that one right there. It's highly unlikely that there was an island with a sink in the middle of a historic kitchen. So, it's probably – It looks nice, but not historic. There's clearly been some plumbing. And, I mean, it's absolutely beautiful. They did a wonderful job with their finishes and execution. So, there's no shade to them on that. But, you know, this really needed to have a full permit review, especially for a multifamily structure. Mr. Carolev, it seems like you're here answering for the contractor. Yeah. And I don't have any answers for that because I do know that we did a complete set of drawings with plumbing modifications, electrical modifications, a demo plan. We did all of that for the client. We were hired to do it. We gave them drawings. And after that, I have no idea why. And they sent you to answer for what somebody else did, huh? Yeah. So, I'm not aware that they did not pull any of those sub permits because I was under the impression that they did because I did respond to comments. You know, that's part of our contract. I do know that after this, they kind of stepped away from us and they did not engage us anymore until, I think, September. They came back to us when I had my first meeting with Michelle's team over the exterior, which I believe it was September, if I remember correctly. We had a pre-application meeting for this code violation. So, then I started working with ownership. I did all of the details for the windows. Basically, we assessed for the – after we had the meeting in September, we took about four months to kind of go over the project. We located everything that was wrong. We did all the details, and that's when we submitted it to staff back in May. And I have been working with staff just to address comments, missing things. And I think that's where – That's on the new COA. Yes, and I believe that's where the voided one came in because one of the first applications I put in, I think it was only for the level one COA. And that one had to be voided because I had to go back in for a historic COA and a site plan approval. So, I think that's where that voided one was coming. It was just the individual level one that I had to then change to a level one and site plan. So, Mr. Carroll, just to cut to the chase here, the city is asking me to give you until August 19th to get your COA and site plan applications in and to get your permits by the 13th of November. 30th. 30th of November? Yeah, 30th. I think 30th of November for the interior permits that they missed. That's reasonable. Regarding the COA, I'm not sure. It all depends on how quickly we can review it with the historical board. But he definitely has me engaged in how to answer and respond to all those comments. Like I tell all our applicants, if you run, we'll run with you. And that's why it's important that Ms. Thompson noted sufficient application to make sure that all the required attachments and everything because it's not acceptable for staff to even review until they have everything that they need. So, how close are we to the COA being ready for review? So, right now, the way the process works is they submit all their documents, application forms, and we review that for sufficiency. And then they submit their plans. It's kind of a two-part put into one. So, we're at the point where they have some comments to respond to to get that application sufficient so we can review the plans. And do you believe, based on your experience, August 19th is a sufficient amount of time to get this accomplished? At this point, being that we're on July 16th, they can get the application submitted in this period of time. They literally could do this in a matter of days. He's already, Mr. Kirilov has indicated, he's already drawn the plans. So, they need to get their documents pulled together and submitted. That's all we're asking. We're not asking to take them to the board by that date. We're asking them to get into the process so we can start reviewing. All right. And the site plan, is that the same? These are a path that runs together. COA and site plan goes together to the board. What date are we saying for board review by? I believe it was in October. I don't have the... Is that the building permit? The building permit is November 30th. Got it. But you have, once you submit the sufficient application, then you have the board, which will be in October. And then after that... Correct. November, you have until the 30th. So, I understand the process correctly. So, we're talking, so you apply for your certificate of appropriateness and your site plan applications. That goes to the review of your department. Assuming that you're okay with it, then they can subsequently apply for the building permit. So, after we review those plans and documents, they go to the Historic Preservation Board. Okay. The board deliberates, makes a decision. Assuming that's positive, then it goes to the... Then it goes to City Commission on the appealable list, which takes under 30 days. So, this is why we've baked in all this time into October. Because, realistically, if they can get submitted, we could get them on the Historic Preservation Board maybe in September, maybe in October. I mean, if it's a good submittal. And then have City Commission appealable pass. Okay. So, the pathway looks like... We backed into it and gave ample time. And if, you know, they're at a point where something happens, board members don't show up to a meeting or we have to cancel and they have to go longer, they can always come back and explain that circumstance to you, sir. And they can come back to me. Yeah. We're okay with that. Okay. So, we're going to... Mr. Karlova, did you listen to the time frame that the... Yes. Yes, I did. Okay. And you're good with that? Yeah, definitely. Okay. All right, Gase. Excuse me. Code 26000727. Make the following findings of fact-in-law if I notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of the three-code section, Certificate of Appropriateness, Building Permits, and Site Plan Applications. I hereby adopt the recommendation of the city of August 19th for the Certificate of Appropriateness and Site Plan Applications. October... What was it, October? What was the date in October? November. We didn't actually ask for that. Yeah, that's the... All right. And for the November 30th deadline for the permits. A failure to meet either deadline can subject the property or property owner to a fine of up to $1,000 per day. Thank you. Case number 12, Code 26000778. The property owner is Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC. The registered agent is Corporation Service Company. The property address is 306 Southwest 15 Terrace. 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 306 Southwest 15 Terrace. Case number code 26000778. This property received a courtesy notice on May 19th, 2026 for landscape maintenance for overgrown landscape and loose trash. The property was given five days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on May 26th, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on June 1st, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted at City Hall on June 22nd, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on June 22nd, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for landscape maintenance. The property had overgrown landscape and loose trash and numbering of buildings and structure. The property did not have the street number posted on the building. As of July 16th, 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. Are both code sections outstanding? Yes, yes. The city is asking for an additional 10 days, which will be on July 26th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. You got to introduce the photos and the evidence. Oh, no, I got to go there. Exhibit 1, taken May 19th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape. It does indeed. And loose trash that's right here adjacent to the sidewalk. Exhibit 2, taken May 19th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape on the exact property. Exhibit 3 is the courtesy notice that was issued May 19th, 2026. Exhibit 4, taken May 26th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and loose trash. Exhibit 5, taken May 26th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and the property number that was right here, where the little square is located, is not there anymore. Exhibit 6, taken June 22nd, 2026, is the notice of violation that was posted. And you can see right here closer where the property number is supposed to be. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 8 was my re-inspection. July 7th, 2026, which shows the overgrown landscape and loose trash. Exhibit 9, taken July 7th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and the missing property numbers. Exhibit 10 is my affidavit of noncompliance. And I would like to introduce these 10 photographs into evidence. Sir, can I have any name, please? Ian Norwich, appearing on behalf of Lakeview Loans. And you're an attorney, sir? Yes, sir. And you have no objection to the photographs? No. Without objection, so admit it. Anything further from the city? The floor is over, sir. Good afternoon. Thank you. Well, first off, we are actually, we're still involved in active litigation. My client got titled to the property in April. I believe certificate of title was issued on April 7th. There is an individual residing in the property, and we've filed a motion for writ of possession that is set to be heard at the end of July, I believe July 23rd this month. So I'm just asking for additional time, once we get the individual removed, that we can go in and get vendors to, of course, clean up the property, put the number on the building, and bring the property into compliance. How much time do you need, sir? I would ask for 60 days. Council? My only concern is that I understand that someone else is presiding in the property, but I don't understand why they can't clean the outside or put numbers on the property. A part of the numbering issue is this is a concern, especially for our fire rescue or emergency response, if something happens to the property and they don't have the number. So that's why that section of the code is important. So I don't, unless they're unlawfully able to go on to the curtilage of the property, I don't see why, as the owner, they can't accomplish it. But I'll leave that up to you, Mr. Wagner. And we would request the 60 days. Why can't you put the numbers on the building? Honestly, I think it is a liability concern at that point, but it's still, we're litigating surplus funds with the actual original owner. This individual is maybe the individual who is the original debtor that's residing at the property. I'm not even sure. There's somebody residing there. When's your hearing? On the 23rd? 23rd. So I'm theory you could have this back in a week or two, huh? I'm assuming that they issue the written, they get, you know, the person's removed timely and what have you. I'll give you 30 days. If that proves to be a problem, you can come back and explain it to me. Case 26000778, I make the following findings of fact in life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of the listed code sections. I give the respondent 30 days to come into compliance or find it up to, I'm going to say, $100 per day may issue. Is that for the actual numbers or is that for? Either one. I'm sorry? Either one. The landscaping as well. Magistrate, I'd like to confirm the daily amount. Is it $50 or is it $100? It's $100. Thank you for your time. Yep. Thank you. Case number 13, code 26000772. The property owner is Phillip Hoffman. The property address is 3916 Northwest 7th Court. And the code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJading. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Rubenson DeJaden. I am here regarding code case number 26000772. A maintenance of building violation located at 3916 Northwest 7th Court. Dary Beach, Florida 33445 on May 30th, 2026, code enforcement officer, myself, Rubenson DeJaden, observed a damaged concrete wall along Lake Haida Road. The property was given 30 days to comply with the violation, and inspection was conducted on July 7th, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on May 30th, 2026. The damaged concrete wall needs to be repaired, which constitutes a violation of city code section 7.8.3 of the land development regulations of the city of Devil Beach. A building permit will be required for the repairs. I have had contact with the property owner, Mr. Hoffman, which is present today. A formal notice of hearing was mailed, first class and certified mailed, on July 1st, 2026, with the compliance date of July 2nd, 2026. The notice of violation was posted to the property on July 3rd, 2026. I have nine exhibits I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit number one, this is the damaged wall that's located at 3960 Northwest 7th Court. This is just showing you the damaged wall and the will of the property along Lake Haida Road. Exhibit number two, that was taken on July 22nd, 2026. This is just a closer... June 22nd. Okay, I'm sorry. June 22nd, 2026. This is a just close picture that I took of the damaged wall. Exhibit number three, that's just showing you the entire house. This was taken on May 30th, 2026, 3916 Northwest 7th Court. Exhibit number four, this is just showing you the different angles of the damaged wall along Lake Haida Road. That was taken on June 22nd, 2026. Exhibit number five, that was the posting that was taken on June 3rd, 2026. Exhibit number six, this is just a photo of the posting. Exhibit number seven, this is just extra photos that was taken on July 7th, 2026. This is exit number eight, that was taken of the damaged wall. So, that was also the same date, July 7th, 2026. Thank you. I just have a couple questions before we introduce these into evidence. I believe earlier in your presentation, you stated that this was male certified... First class certified male. Right, right. But is it June 1st, correct? I believe you said July. I meant to say June 1st. Okay. My 4th and that. Correct. I just wanted to clear that up. And then also, your affidavit of posting does state that you physically posted this as well on June 3rd. June 3rd, 2026, correct. Correct. So, they had from June, at least June 1st when you mailed it to June 3rd when you posted it to come in to comply with the compliance date by July 2nd, correct? Correct. All right. So, I want to make sure the date's worth it. Thanks for the question. You're welcome. At this time, the city would like to introduce the eight exhibits into evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? My name is Phil Hoffman. And you don't know the property, sir? Yes. Do you have any objections to the photographs that the code officer took? No, I don't. That objection's so admitted. So, what's going on with your wall? Well, I just bought the house like nine months ago. And for a long time, I wasn't even aware that there was all this damage on the other side because my side looks great. But finally, I was aware of it. And so, I thought, well, I've got to get this taken care of. And so, I thought about taking care of it, but I should have done it before I got the notice. You know, that's my big mistake. But I had every intention of... It's usually a good idea. Yeah. I have every intention of taking care of that. And the only reason why it's not completed at this point is because I thought there was a survey to my house. And I was told there was. But it turns out nobody can find it. So, I had to get a survey done. You bought the house without a survey? Well, I was told that there was a survey, but I never actually saw the survey. So, I assumed that they were right. And then I find out that nobody could find the survey on file. So, anyway. So, then I said, well, I've got to get a survey. So, it turns out that I called... That's a little odd because title companies don't issue title policies without surveys. Correct. Yeah. I mean, in my past life as a real estate attorney, that's a little weird. But I don't know. Keep going. Well, anyway. So, I tried calling numerous different survey companies and they all had a waiting period of three to four weeks. So, I finally got the survey done. That sounds about right to think. Yeah. So, I finally got the survey done. Now, if I had had the survey, I probably could have completed it by now. You know, the compliance. How much time do you need to fix your wallet? Well, I'm sure that I could probably get it done in 30 days, but it'd be nice to have 60. Just so there's no hassle, no anxiety. But I'm sure we could get it done in 30 days because he's already got the new survey and he's getting the permits now, my contractor. And there's a big demolition job part of this because of this wall. Yeah, I would think so. Yeah. So, I just based on the scope of the work that needs to be done. Yes. I did speak to the supervisor and he's comfortable with 45 days. Oh, okay. That seems like a good compromise. That sounds good. What fine amount was the city seeking here? The city suggests that the property on earth to be granted 30 days, actually 45 days, to apply and obtain an approved permit or a daily fine of $100 thereafter. All right, Mr. Hoffman. I'm going to give you the 45 days. But they do move quickly, so you should get your contractor working. He's already working on it. Fantastic. Case 26-000772, make the following findings effective in law. If a notice is sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 7.8.3, which is the deteriorating wall. The respondent has 45 days to bring it to compliance by obtaining a permit or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Good luck, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We now move to old business. Case number 14, 2017-102-363. The property owners are Sandra A. English and Annie Rowe. The personal representative for this property is Eric English. However, Timothy Boykin will be appearing on behalf of Eric English. The property address is 333 Northwest 8th Avenue. This is a request for reduction of leave. Horton's relationship. That's aunt and great aunt. Sandra Rowe. Sandra Rowe. I mean, Sandra English and Mrs. Rowe. And then Eric English, the personal representative. Well, that's her son. He provided you with authorization to be here. Correct. Correct. So you said they're your aunt and uncle? Aunt. Family. Aunt family, you know. Yes. Both of them are disease. Eric is alive, you know what I'm saying, and he couldn't make it here. You know, he's in and out of the hospital, basically. So it looks like this must be some type of probate if they have a personal representative. Well, they're trying to do the probate. This year has been kind of rough. Well, I don't know if I go or you want me to talk. Is it okay? Yeah. It's your hearing. Yeah. It's my hearing. Okay. All right. It's been kind of rough with us this year, basically. 2005, we lost my grandfather, then right up, and my aunt, Ms. Sandra. And, you know, my brother, he just passed in 2006. You know what I'm saying? It's like it's an ongoing circle of things that this year, of things that are unexpected. And now that the children have inherited the property, Ms. England was 85. We was trying to put it together, keep it up the park and stuff like that. And Annie was 101 years old. So, you know, things got a little bit rough. You know what I'm saying? When the daughter tried to do it, then she passed, and it is what it is. And right now, finance is not at the best place for either one of us, but we're trying our best, you know what I'm saying, to try to see whatever we can do to get this here. And hopefully Eric make it because he's in and out of the hospital, you know what I'm saying, and we don't want to have him to have a turnaround, you know what I'm saying? But life is not promised to anybody. And my diabetes, God, I didn't know you was the man up here. I met you, and I was crying about it. I had to go get some beef jerky, you know what I'm saying, because my sugar was low. I was feeling kind of oozy, you know what I'm saying? But at the end of the day, you know, my sugar is bothering me, too. So if anybody got a solution for that, help me. So I do want to disclose that these are public hearings, and this is recorded. So if you don't want your company to help me. Well, I don't mind. Somebody got a result. Something to help me with diabetes, please help me. Yeah. But anyway. I'm not sure I can help you with that. I might be able to help you with this. Let me go to this in here. What's the amount? I guess a short-circuit your presentation. What is the hearing? Do you want me to just go on and just tell you what? Is this a reduction? Yeah, it's for a lean reduction. So what is the total amount? The total amount is $12,100. And then, sir, what are you requesting? Well, due to the circumstances that we are up under and the pressure that our family is facing right now, and everybody is sick and is left on the kids, I'm at your mercy, basically. You know what I'm saying? And basically, we're trying. It's just hard. We really don't have finances right now. In order for me to give you something, you have to ask me for something. Okay. If I ask you, Mr. Sir, can I have a $500 deduction that will help me out greatly with the family, and maybe it can help me to buy diabetes medicine, just having fun. But seriously, right now, anywhere between $5,000 to $1,500, you know what I'm saying? But it's at your mercy, you know what I'm saying? But right now, we are in a straight. We, you know, with the taxes came up on it, with the barriers, and the children are trying to just barely make it, you know what I'm saying, and stuff like that. So whatever you decide, I'm at your mercy. But under the circumstances that we've faced all these crises, and this year alone, you know what I'm saying, and Eric is sick now himself, so we don't know which direction we're going. We just need to, as the children and family, to get this resolved to move forward. What's the city's position? The city's asking for 25%, which is $3,025, to be paid within 30 days, which is by August 15, 2026. And for the record, I did, you know, because I want to make sure we have the right people, and, you know, I did, I was able to find the probate case. This case is an active probate, and Mr. Eric English is indeed the personal representative, even though it's not on the property appraiser website. It is, I'm sure he has the papers or letters of administration for that. Yes. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll reduce it to 20%, which is $2,400. How much time do you need? Well, let's say, what, 60 days or something like that? 60 days it is. But can I ask you just a little bit more or less? I already reduced it from what the city was asking. Okay. All right. All right. Case 2017-102363, I reduce it from $12,100 to $2,400 payable within 60 days. Thank you. Thank you. All right. 60 days. You said $24? Yep. $24,000. And we'd make it to check out. Do you all right? You don't make it out to me. Huh? You don't make it out to me. That's for sure. Case number 15, 2021-012-065. The property owner is Issa Mesa. The property address is 937 Southwest 20th Court. The code officer on the case is Randall Strawn. This is a request for reduction of lien. So, good afternoon. So, Mr. The whole family, huh? Right. Mr. Mesa is here with his family. In the past, when Mr. Mesa has appeared, we've had an interpreter, an Arabic interpreter, readily available for him. However, our interpreter was unable to be here last minute under circumstances that he could not control. And Mr. Mesa is here today. He has requested that his 12-year-old daughter serve as an interpreter in case he has something that he does not understand. He advised me, during our conversation, he seemed to understand what I was saying, that he is fluent in English. But there are some minor words that he has minor issues with. I personally have concerns with a juvenile serving as an interpreter. And this was so last minute. You know, based on my professional experience, I don't believe this would be allowable. So, what I'm suggesting is, if he can indeed communicate, this is a reduction hearing, fully in English, I'm comfortable with that. If you swear him in, he tells you and you're satisfied that he fully understands everything. But I'm not comfortable with the interpretation from the minor. I don't think I could swear in a minor to interpret. But, Mr. Mesa, I'm okay with proceeding with the hearing as long as you feel as if you can understand me okay. So, what I'm going to ask you to do is, if I use any words or say something that you don't understand to stop me, you can just raise your hand or something like that. And I will try and explain it with different words. But I need to know that you understand what I'm saying, right? Are you comfortable with that? Yep. As a city? Can we get him closer to the microphone? I hope it's getting on record just to make sure he's closer. Yes. All right. All right. Officer Strong, you want to introduce this? Yes. Good afternoon. Randall Strong here today. Just for our clarity, you should speak a little slower. All right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Is it slow, slow? I understand. Yes, sir. Yeah. Slow. Slow. Stan, you got me? All right. Yes, sir. Randall Strong here today for case 21-120-65 for the property at 937 South West 20th Court, originally found in violation on March 2, 2022, for not attaining the permit to repair the home destroyed by a fire. The property was given 60 days to apply and attain the permit or $50 a day for noncompliance. The case was presented to special magistrate on August 21st, 2024, where a $45,100 lien was recorded on the property and a $50 fine continued. The case was presented as special magistrate on April 2nd, 2026, where the case was determined to be in compliance prior to the hearing. No order was written. The home was sold as of October 30th, 2025, by Mr. Issa Mezor, which is the new owner right now. And he assumed the liens and the accrued fines. As of today, the lien is an accrued fines in the amount of $74,573.96. The owner is here to ask for a reduction of fines or liens. So, keep going. All right. I just want to make sure we're clear with the amounts. So, there's an active lien for $45,100, correct? No, we have a lien of $74,000. I thought you said fine. Well, fine, fine, fine, yes. Yes. But what is the recorded lien that we have on the property? The recorded lien is $45,100. Okay, and then after that, he purchased the property and made? Pre-purchased the property on October 30th, 2025. And the property is currently in compliance? The property is in compliance, yes, it is. Okay, thank you. So, the total outstanding, if I understood you correctly, is $74,570-odd, something like that? And $0.96. And $0.96. Yes. All right, got it. All right, Mr. Mezor, what are you asking me for? I asked him, what did I tell you? You have to, you, what do you see, do it, do it, no problem. What do you see, good, do it. Now, from now, I don't have money. I'm already, I work in the job, only $2,000 a month. But, you know, the contractor, you help me, and other people, he give me something, loan, money. And what I work in, my job, and the boss has helped me a little bit. This way, I pay a lot of rent. And I have six kids. I can see. Yeah. Then, I funded this house, cheap, and I still work for this house. Why is that my bill? All of them go rent. No, nothing, nothing I buy for the kids. Now, maybe it's good for me, but I need help. You move this amount for me. I remember. So, it sounds like he wants the amount removed. I did want to show, just as an officer of the court, I did want to show the special magistrate the initial violation photographs. This is an older case. There was a lot of significant damage. And this is the property currently today. I did, prior to the hearing, we did, I did speak to the director. And she authorized the following recommendation. Yeah. The city suggests fines to be reduced to $2,500. So, 20, so she approved or a recommendation to reduce the fines from the 70-something thousand. 74,000. 74,000 to 2,500, based on the significant amount of work that was done to the property in the short amount of time. Mr. Minister, the city is recommending to me to reduce the fine from the 74,500 and change. It's like 96 cents, I think. 96 cents. To $2,000, $2,500. Now, I know you said you don't have a lot of money. What I can do is, I think that, in fact, not only do I think that's reasonable, I think that's very reasonable by the city. Because that's the vast majority of the fine. But I know you were telling me you don't have a lot of money. What I can do is I can give you an extended period to pay that. How long do you think you might need? I don't know how long. My job now is very slow. You can ask me for whatever you think you need. It's $2,000? It's $2,500 total. That's all you have to pay. Of the $74,500. And I can give you time to pay that. I can give you a significant amount of time to pay that. You just have to ask me. Does he need time to consult with his family? No, no. No, you can talk to your family about what you're thinking. No, my wife is not work. He has six kids. No, no. I thought maybe you wanted to consult with them, not as a part of your lack of understanding, but to consult with your family on whether... You can, three months? You know what? I'm going to give you, I'll give you six months. Is that enough? Do you think that's going to be enough time for you? I don't pay one time. I pay monthly, correct? No. The city doesn't really have a method to take that. So what you're going to need to do is to save the money until you have the amount and then to pay it to the city. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to give you 12 months. No. Well, what I would suggest that we do, I don't know about a year, but what I would suggest that we do is if maybe we can do a bifurcated order and split it into three months, you know, 60 days by this day, 60 days by this day, 60 days. That way, if he wants... It seems overly complicated. I know. A year. I don't know. All right. Why don't we... Well, let's do the six months because that seems to be reasonable. We'll do this... I have one question. Yeah. I am very grateful for what you did for him, and I thank everyone present as well as you for the appreciation you've shown us. I'm not sure this is exactly legal. However, would it be possible to adjust the amount to $1,500? Believe me, my situation is truly very difficult right now. Sir, I understand that your situation is difficult, and the amount that the city recommended at $2,500 is substantially lower than I think that they would normally ask in this situation because the existing fine right now as we stand here is almost $75,000. Okay. So, if I'm going from $75,000 to $2,500, I think it's more than reasonable by the city. So, I'm not inclined to reduce it any further, but I will give you the six months. Okay. Okay? Well, Lula, thank you. All right. In case 2021-01-2065 reduced to $2,500 payable within six months. Anytime I pay him, correct? From now in six months. Yeah. Anytime. Anytime. Is that where I come here and I'm going to pay? Yes, you come here and pay. Anytime. Anytime before six months. But after six months, you can't. After six months, it goes back to the original amount. You go more money. Correct. It goes back to the $75,000. Thank you. So, you definitely don't want that to happen. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Oh, no problem. But you see the case? Two hours come down. We see the case. Case number? I see them. I hear them. Case number 16. 2024-003-389. The property owner is Ann Stokes Bright Revocable Trust, where Henry Stokes Medlin and Nicholas R. Bright are the co-trustees. The property address is 135 Southeast 5th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Supervisor LaToya Thompson. This is a request for reduction of lien or fine. So, we meet again, Mr. Schmick. Schmick. Schmick. We meet again here. That sounds ominous. Yes. I'm many things, but I'm not ominous. Originally found in violation on June 13, 2024, for maintenance of building for a roof repair, given 30 days to comply, or $200 day to fly. On January 23, 2025, a lien was placed on the property in the amount of $39,600. On May 8, 2025, a second lien was recorded on the property in the amount of $20,800. There is an accrued fine from May 9, 2025 to October 23, 2025 in the amount of $33,400. As of today, there's a lien and accrued fine in the amount of $92,854. So, you want to make your appearance? Yes. David Schmick representing Ann Bright. This is Reeve Bright, her husband. I know we're very long into the process, but I did request a copy of the city's file, and according to the city's file, the only attempt at the initial notice was a certified mailing to Mrs. Bright's address. There's no record of a posting on the property. The affidavit that was in the file showed the first posting was in December, long after. That was for the hearing, but it doesn't appear that the original notice was posted on the property, and Mr. Bright can testify. They have a gate at home. If no one answered the doorbell, a postman wouldn't have been able to deliver the original letter. And again, I can't tell from the file copy that I received. It doesn't look like the city uses return cards, and there's no copy of an envelope being returned in the file. So, what happened with it after that, I can't say. So, Mr. Bright just coincidentally repaired the building in 2025, and as was noted, it was in compliance in October of 2025. So, we'd like to ask, given what was very minimal notice of the initial violation, that the fine be reduced to $1,000. Do we know who the officer of record was on this one? No, I'm trying. Actually, my computer is right. Do we have the clerk file up? I have the file here. You have the file up here. I know this initially went to hearing, and all those questions would have been asked when they were found in violation, and obviously that time frame, you know, to appeal is well passed on that. I don't know if they're asking for the mitigation or reduction. I presume Mr. Schmidt is asking as a mitigation rather than an appeal of the notice requirement, because that has long since expired. Correct. I mean, our position is that our requirements are to, based on Chapter 162, to send it to wherever the notice is on the property appraiser website. So, if we sent it, I don't believe there's no mailbox rule there where it has to be received, right? Once we sent it to that address, you know, it's out of our control. So, the order usually states, makes a finding on the notice. Correct. It doesn't? Correct. What does the order say there? Because I don't have it in mind. I'm trying to. This file is a mess, yeah. Yeah. If I may, I would just note the address on record where the tax bill for the property is sent is Mrs. Bright's residence. This is a commercial property. It's a completely separate building. So, yeah, well, then the notice would have gone to our residence. Correct. But there would not have been a posting on the residence. If it had been posted, it would have been posted on the commercial property, but there's no affidavit in the city's file that shows that the initial violation notice was posted. Well, that's, I don't, we don't have the record, but that's typically part of the testimony. I don't believe back then that we entered those exhibits. It's the affidavits of postings, this was a while ago, I don't believe so, but let me just look through that. Well, I have a copy of it here. This is what the city sent me. The affidavit. From your file, right. Okay. And the first notice was for the notice of formal hearing on January 23rd, 2025, and it was posted on January 9th of 2025. And Ms. Thompson just testified that the violation date was June 13th of 2024. So there was no posting of it, apparently, on the property. And the photographs in the city file are all dated in January 2025 of the posting, the initial posting. Mr. Schmidt, can you tell me why it took the respondent? I mean, even assuming that I, and I'll take into account your argument associated with the notice, though, I do think the city actually probably complied with 162. But assuming for a second that I treat that as some form of mitigation, why did it take so long for this property to come to compliance? Well, I think that's a better question asked of Mr. Bright. Can I say two things? Here, read. You have to say it into the mic, but you can say more than two things if you like. You might regret that. It's very difficult to, if you look at, well, they don't even show you what part of the roof was gone. To get a roofer to come and do this small job, it very much concerned me because it's on the front part, and I have tenants down under there, and I was always worried that somebody would get hit a piece of tile would slide. And I went, and I went, and people I've been using for years came over three times, and they wouldn't even give me a bid to do it. I'm not going to say the name of the company because you'd all fall out of your chair if I told you. But I want to say one other thing. I kept hearing that the city was unhappy, code enforcement. I never saw a notice on the building, or I would have come to a hearing. I went to code enforcement at least three times and asked, and, oh, we came for the phone, you can't see the file, and I, oh, you've got to come back, you've got to do this. I could never get to the bottom of the problem. Hence, after I repaired it, I kept hearing that I had a lien on the property, and I would have been back over there since, and I couldn't get a copy of it. So I asked and hired David to come help me. I don't know what to do. I didn't ever receive these notices that I would have come to a hearing. We wouldn't have thrown it. I'm in that building every day. If they put a notice, I would have seen it, and I apologize. You weren't in receipt of the certified mail that was sent to the home address? I'm sorry? You weren't in receipt of the certified mail that was sent to the home address? I did not see a certified mail that came to the home address. I would have, I tried, anyway, I apologize, didn't have notice of the hearings, or we would have been here, and I'm trying to clean this up, and in a lot of ways, I feel that the city has taken, I don't know, an advantage, but. Yeah, I mean, my issue is it's not so much, it's not the city's responsibility to let you know that you need to fix your roof. I mean, they do, when they bring it to hearing, they do let you know, but ultimately it's the property owner's responsibility to maintain their property. And I do, by the way, I do remember this case, and I do remember seeing the pictures of the roof, and that was pretty substantial damage. You had to know at some point that you had to fix that, right? I fixed it, but it ain't, I don't mean to interrupt, but it isn't as easy as you think to get somebody to come and do that because it's of the tile and all that, and they had to get the tile to match, and God, it was a, anyway, I apologize. I didn't want it looking that way, and I don't know what to say to you. I mean, the correction is the last resort, which is when something goes on for a while and doesn't get fixed, fixed, that's when the city brings these cases, as you can probably tell since I know you've been here a while. What's the city's position on their request? The city, I believe we have a recommend, like, whatever. 25% of. Right, we would not agree to 1,000. So 25% of 92,854 is 23,213.50. So I'd say the respondent and the city are pretty far apart on this one. So the city is offered, so Mr. Schmidt, the city is offered 23,213. Talk to me about that. Again, given the notice question, it was nine months between the hearing and, or the lien and the compliance. I mean, it's not an extended, like it's gone on for years. Nine months is not a small amount of time either. No, I understand, but the, from my review of the pictures, and this is an opinion, it's not a legal argument, but it appeared to be more aesthetic than any sort of life safety issue with replacing the barrel tiles, because it's what's under the roof that is what keeps the roof watertight. Barrel tiles are more decorative. They do provide a little bit of waterproofing, but not like the underlayment. All right, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll reduce it to 15,000. And just, just for the record. Did you find, I know you've been searching that file. Yeah, no, I've been searching this file. And the way, when they notice the properties and they mail them out, they attach the notice of violation to the actual hearing notice, so they were separate. As of today, how we do notices of hearings, you have the notice of the violation, and you already have the hearing date on there. Previously, it was just like a notice of violation, and if it wasn't cured, then they would do a separate notice. Notice of hearing, yeah, I remember. Right, but now, I mean, even so, so I don't know where the, maybe there was some confusion, but that the actual notice of violation was attached to the notice of hearing that was mailed. And I also found the, the, the, the code enforcement confirmation from the officer, whoever the staff member was, who attested that on March 26, 2024, that the notice of violation was mailed, and it was posted at City Hall on April 24th, and it was also posted on the violation property on April 24th, as well. So, not only did we mail it, we also posted it in City Hall on the property, and I believe there's even actually a picture in the file of the posting. So, just to be clear on that, and this went to hearing, and whoever the hearing officer found was that notice, and everything was complied with. I suspect that might have been me. But I'll give you a little bit of a break. $15,000, how much time do you need, Mr. Print? I appreciate it. It's too much. I try to straighten this out. I go over there. They won't show you the file. They won't do anything. They're rude to you. They just shut down on you. I'm sorry. If I knew there was a hearing, I would have been here. $15,000. So, you walked in here with a fine of $92,000? Yes. That I was never aware of the hearing. And I still wasn't aware of the hearing today. And I try to do what's right. And for the city to want me to pay them $15,000 is just not fair or right. Actually, the city wanted you to pay $23,213. I reduced it to $50,000. I appreciate that, but I can't afford it, and I'm not going to pay it. Fair enough. If you change your mind, I'll give you 60 days. Okay, thank you. And if he doesn't pay the 60 days, it reverts back to the original amount. It does. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 17, Code 26-000-374. The property owner is William R. Burke, Jr. The property address is 123 East Atlantic Avenue. The code officer on the case is Connor Lee. This is a request for reduction of lien or fine. Good afternoon, Magistrate. All right, the case was originally found in violation on January 7, 2026 for the installation of a sign and awning without permits. The property was given 30 days to comply or a $100 daily fine would be issued. On April 2, 2026, a lien was placed on the property in the amount of $5,400. The case came into compliance on June 7, 2026. As of today, there is a lien and recording fee in the amount of $5,438.35. And the representative of the owner is here to ask for a reduction of fine. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Bill Korsh. Are you an attorney, sir? No, no, I was the tenant in the building. And what's your relation to the owner? He's my landlord. Fair enough. What are you asking me for and why should I grant it to you? I'd like to pay $500. And we did get, we finally, I pay people to get the permits for the sign and for the awning. It finally worked with the sign and we were able to get the permits and the people with the awning, extreme awning, they just never did it. They put the awning up, they did everything, but they didn't follow through on the permit. I was, I'm not an active participant in the business. I'm an investor. And so I wasn't aware of all that was going on. When I found out about it, I jumped in and I did what I could. And I finally took the awning down because I couldn't get a permit and I didn't want to wait and I didn't want to pay $100 a day. I just took the awning down. This was the true vegan restaurant? Yes. This was in here. Do you remember? There was the... I don't remember this one. It was Chef Roy, Chef Romay, he came in. Oh, the chef that came in, right? Right. Yeah. It's a true vegan. It's right off Atlantic next to the Italian. I do remember that. Yes. So what's the fine is, what, $5,400? Yeah, $5,400. I believe staff has a recommendation. Let's hear it. Yes. City suggests 25% of the total accrued, so $1,359.58 to be paid in 30 days, August 15, 2026. What do you think? I'd like to pay $500 today, if I can. I'll make it $1,000 30 days. Thank you. Thank you. Case number 18, Code 26-000-572. The property owner is Kenneth Begasi, Jr. and Michael Sanzen. The property address is 138 Southwest 5th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. This is a request for reduction of lien or fines. Is there anyone? Is there someone here? Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 138 Southwest 5th Avenue. Case number code 26-000-572. Originally filing violation on February 9th, 2026 for work without permit on property. The case was presented to Special Magistrate on April 2nd, 2026 and given 30 days to correct all violations or $100 daily fine. The case came into compliance on- This was a fence, right? Yes. I remember this one. The case came into compliance May 14th, 2026. I have included one photo from the original case and two new photos that show the property in compliance. There's an accrued fine of $900 and the owner is requesting a reduction of the fine. How many days was that out of compliance? It was nine days. So this was the original photo that was made February 9th and this is the compliance date. You applied by removing the fence, huh? Yeah, you removed the fence, yes. And then after you removed it, the permit was approved. No, he's not here, no. Submitted an affidavit, which reads as follows. Upon receiving the notice of violation, I immediately applied for a permit. Is that true? Yes. My assumption was that, let's see, editorial observation here. When you start a sentence with my assumption, it almost always goes bad. My assumption was that this satisfied my requirement to take action. I'm pretty sure I didn't order anyone to take action. When Mr. Williams informed me that I was accumulating penalties, I immediately removed the fence. I have since been granted a permit for the fence. I admit that I made an honest mistake, but consider the cost of the fence now three times as much. I feel like I have paid enough. Additionally, I think it's clear I tried to comply with the city's request. I agree with that. He certainly did try to comply, at least in some way. What's the city's position on his request? He didn't give me a number here, but... City suggests 25% to be paid in 30 days, which would be $225. I'll reduce it to 200 even, 30 days. Thank you. I think that's it, right? This concludes our cases for today. All right, seeing no further business before us, slightly before 4 o'clock, we're adjourned. Thank you.