Can you hear? Okay. I'm calling this meeting to order. This is the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for the City of Delray Beach. The cases are going to be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless otherwise noted, which I think we will have today. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium that is on my left-hand side over here. The City will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the City has submitted and to ask questions of any of the City's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, I'd ask that you rise right now and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in. Anyone that's going to testify. Anyone that thinks they might testify. Thank you so much, sir. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'm waiting up for you. Yes? Thank you. Consent agenda. Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written. So approved. Thank you. I don't think we have any minutes. Minutes are deferred until the next hearing. All right. Do we have any changes to the case order? Yes. We'd like to request that we call case number 5 first. That's code 26-000677. Okay. Let's call it. Thank you. Case number 6. 5. I'm so sorry. Case number 5, code 26-000677. The property owner is Cynthia Rickman, LLC. The property address is 131 Northwest 4th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Code Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. LaWanda Warren on behalf of the City of Delray Beach. We have discussed this matter with the respondent's counsel who was present in the chambers today. We've come to an agreement. We're asking for approval. Counsel and I have discussed the resolution wherein the respondent is admitting to the violation, would be given 60 days to obtain approved certificate of, and we'll give you a specific date, an approved certificate of appropriateness and all required permits by August 4th, or a fine of, we didn't discuss the fine, but $100 a day of counsel's fine with that. Sir, can you state your name, please? Chris Finley, Your Honor. Can you spell your last name? F like in Frank, I-N-L-E-Y. Mr. Finley, you are an attorney for the respondent in this case? Yes, ma'am. The City is representing that you've reached an agreement to find a violation to give an additional 60 days to come into compliance by obtaining the certificate of appropriateness and the building permits or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue after that time, which would be August 4th? I think you said $100. Did I say something different? You said $250. Or $200. Sorry, $100 a day? Is that your understanding, sir? Yes. All right, in code 26-0-0-0-6-7-7, I make the following findings of fact in life. Find notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of the listed code sections. I give the respondent until August 4th, 2026 to come into compliance for a fine of up to $100 per day. May issue is set for a fine assessment hearing if necessary. Good luck, sir. Thank you for coming in. Thank you. I'm so sorry. If we could, I know this is out of order. Case number 6, if we can call that Ms. Hoyland, who is our city's expert witness, has a meeting. Okay. If we would be so kind to oblige her to call this case next. It's case number 6. Go ahead. Case number 6, code 26-0-0-0-6-8-1. The property owners are Charlotte Case, Lundergan Living Revocable Trust, and Charlotte C. Lundergan as trustee. The property address is 226 South Ocean Boulevard, and the code officer on the case is Code Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Supervisor with the City of DelVere Beach Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding a maintenance of historical site violation. On March 12, 2026, Code Enforcement received a citizen complaint regarding historically zoned property located at 226 South Ocean Boulevard. The complaint indicated that certain areas of the structure was deteriorating. The property was subsequently referred to the city's Historic Preservation Division. An investigation of the property was conducted and identified several areas of the structure in need of repair. Damaged slash rotten wood windows surrounds the north side of the northwest structure. Damaged stucco and rotten trim fascia of the north corner of the northwest structure. Damaged rotten fascia trim on the south side of the northwest structure. Damaged stucco on the south side of the south structure. Sagging shingles and peeling paint in the gables on the south side of the northwest structure. The conditions constitute as a violation of the City of DelVere Beach Land Development Regulation Section 4.5, subsection E, subsection 9, maintenance required for the historical site and building penalties. The original magistrate violation was issued April 20, 2026 and mail first class certified mail and posted to the City Hall on April 21, 2026. Compliance was required May 22, 2026. The violation was posted on the property April 28, 2026. On May 28, 2026, Michelle Hoyland and I conducted a re-inspection of the property located at 226 South Ocean Boulevard. The results of the re-inspections are as follows. There is still deterioration on the rear gable slash fascia of the accessory and guest cottage as well as the west and south side of the resident at the south corner of the site. Additionally, we did not receive a response regarding the roof shingles surrounding the fireplace on the two-story building. The LDR requirements were not met as Section 4, deteriorate or ineffective waterproofing or exterior walls, roof, foundation, floors, including broken windows and doors. Five, presence of sign that indicates rotten wood or termite infestation. Six, any fault or defect in the structure or building which renders it structurally unsafe, insufficiently protected from weather or not properly watertight. Therefore, the property remains noncompliant. The City is suggesting that the property come into compliance by July 4, 2026 or a fine of $100 per day be assessed against the property until compliance is achieved. I have, I believe, 16 photos to present into evidence. What compliance date were you looking at? It was July 1? July 4th. Certainly a momentous day. Repeat that. 250? July 4th, 2026. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1. Taken March 12, 2026. This is a picture of one of the structures obviously deteriorating. Exhibit 2 is another structure. I believe this is the cottage. As you can see, the fascia wood is deteriorating. March 12, yes. These are initial photos I took. Exhibit 3, also on the structure, the windows is also deteriorating. Exhibit 4, March 12, the roof not addressed. Exhibit 5 is another picture of the address 226, South Ocean. Exhibit 6 is on the accessory structure. Again, the walls, as you can see, cracks and other deficiencies. Exhibit 7 was given to me by Michelle Hoyland on all the structures, the evidence of wood rotten on the fascia, the evidence of damaged stucco, the evidence of saggy shingles, the evidence of wood rotten on the windows, evidence of damaged stucco and wood rotten. Exhibit 8 is the notice of violation posted on April 28th. Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of posting on the 28th. Exhibit 10 is what the contractor sealed up on one of the structures. Exhibit 11, you still can see the deterioration on the stucco. Exhibit 12, the window still wasn't fixed. The shingles still was damaged. This is all on May 28th. The fascia, they just painted over it. They didn't fix it. They just painted over the fascia. This is another picture. And then this is an affidavit of noncompliance. So in this photograph here, what is still out of compliance? The stucco, like you have the, you have cracks that you can't see. Let me see. Let's show you another picture of it right there. It's 11 and 15 are the same. They, you can see that in the paints that there's issues. Thank you. You're welcome. At this time of the city, we'd like to introduce the 16 photographs into evidence. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? We do have a, um, I'm not sure if this young lady was sworn in here. Do you want to say something quickly? You can please swear them in. By the, by the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. If you can please step forward to the microphone. Good afternoon. How are you doing? I'm fine. How are you? Um, could you please state your name for the record? Yes. My name is Dr. Kathy Appleton. And then my name is Bud Siddell. And are you? My real name's George. Okay. And are you familiar with the property located at 226 South Ocean Boulevard? Yes, we are. We live next door. All right. And then you, you provided information to the, the city regarding the issues that are occurring with that property, correct? Yes. And could you describe just briefly, um, what you observed? We've been watching the property deteriorate over the years. And so the pictures that were shown have been gone on for years, particularly the hole in the converted garage, et cetera. Okay. All right. That's yes too. I agree with that. Okay. And then you provided this information? Yes. Yes. We have a concern. It's a historic district. And, um, we have a concern that the houses are not just this one, but all of them, which are maintained by and large. People work very hard, um, that it is maintained. It is a historic property and it's the gateway to the district. Okay. Well, thank you for coming here today. Is there anything else you'd like to say? No? No. Other than what, uh, we only heard a little part about what the officer said, but we do agree with that. All right. Well, thank you so much for coming today. Thank you. Okay. I'd just like to briefly call Ms. Hoyland. Good afternoon. Could you please state your, I don't know if you can hear me, could you please state your full name for the record and tell us which department you work with? Hi, I'm Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner, Development Services. And then how long have you been with the city of Dollar Beach? Nearly 10 years. And are you familiar with the property located at 226 South Ocean Boulevard? Yes. And, um, you know, we received this complaint, code enforcement investigated, but could you just, you've been present and you've seen the exhibits that were presented today, correct? Correct. And that is this a fair and accurate representation of your observations? Yes. And, um, so what are your concerns that you see from a historic standpoint with this property? Uh, that there are some deterioration and rot occurring, um, of wood members and also stucco around the building. Um, the concern is that's not meeting the requirements of the LDRs, Section 4.5.1 E9, which requires maintenance of historic properties. Um, and further deterioration and not having the structure watertight could eventually lead to, um, more permanent damage. Thank you. Of course, some of these things will require a certificate of appropriateness. No, these could be handled straight through building permit if, if that's even necessary. Um, this particular picture here is a little bit more of a concern because if it has been open like this for a significant period of time, what is happening on the inside? Is there any deterioration to studs or wood members on the interior of the structure itself? So I think that the owner would be wise to take a look at their, um, the interior of their building to make sure that there isn't any water damage that could cause the whole section of the building to fail or fall down. Um, and has anyone from the property contacted your office? So the architect, we have a COA, Certificate of Appropriateness, in sufficiency review, I believe, for this property. Um, they want to do some alterations and additions adding on that requires that COA. So we've been in contact with the architect, Mr. Roger Cope regarding that. And then I think he's also reached out to your offices and copied us perhaps on those emails. Other than that, um, I have not had an update from my team that anybody else has reached out to gain compliance. And Ms. Thompson would be sufficient to bring this property? I totally think so. Like I said, they could check with the building department. I don't know that an actual permit would be necessary for some of these smaller repairs, like this particular picture here that Ms. Thompson has up. Um, the wood is rotten. So just stuck going over wood or painting over it or whatever they did is not really a sufficient fix. They really are going to have to replace that section of fascia. Um, but they may not even need a permit to do these items. They just need to get into compliance. So July 4th is just under a month away or just a month from today. Um, I think that's sufficient time. Thank you. I have one. Are you concerned at all that the conditions on this property might lead to sort of a, what's the term we use, a demolition by neglect? Absolutely. Yes. That's why I suggested the property owner should inspect interior next year. I don't think they live here permanently. I think this might be, um, a second home. I think, um, just based on what I've heard from neighbors about the comings and goings of the, the owners. So they should come down and inspect and make sure that this isn't a more serious damage because demolition by neglect is obviously covered in the LDR section 451E9. Um, if there's documented code enforcement violations such as this relating to maintenance concerns and then eventually it leads to the building falling down or some kind of demolition happening because of neglect, the property owners would be, um, could be restricted from rebuilding on the property for five years. Um, that's the most extreme penalty. Officer Thompson, have you had any, um, contact with the owners here? I had contact with, um, the architect, which Ms. Holyland mentioned, Roger. He, um, when he repaired, he, um, when he repaired, he, um, he, when he repaired this, he told me to close the case. But when we did the re-inspection, obviously it was more, you know, they painted over stuff. They didn't really fix the issue. I'm not an expert on building, but I don't think an architect does maintenance. But, um, all right, I'm, I'm satisfied that the conditions do constitute a violation. So in case 26-0-0-0-6-8-1, I make the following findings of fact-in-law and fine notice sufficient to find the property in violation of code section 4.5.1E9 and the maintenance of historical sites. I give the respondent until July 4th, 2026 to bring the property into compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number one. Case number one, code 26-0-0-0-7-0-9. The property owners are Thrive Collection Foundation. The property address is 521 Northwest 2nd Street. And the code officer on the case is Chandler Ferguson. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate Mr. Wagner. My name is Chandler Ferguson, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach, case number 26-7-0-9. This property, 521 Northwest 2nd Street, was issued a notice of violation on April 29th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail, certified regular mail, and posted to the city, the city hall, on May 1st, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on May 4th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner, Thrive Collective Foundation. This property was cited for 4.6.16E, subsection 3, landscape regular vehicle encroachment. As of June 3rd, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached seven photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Go ahead. This photo is evidence that vehicles were parked on the grass, vehicle encroached on April 29th. You see the vehicles parked, the truck, Audi, the Chevy. Officer Ferguson, did you take these photographs? Yes, I did. Are they a fair and accurate representation of what you saw? Yes, my initials are on the bottom right-hand corner of the photo. Is this what you observed when you were on the property? Yeah, I took the photo that says CRF on the bottom right-hand corner on April 29th, 2026. Thank you. At 9.57 a.m. Okay. Just tell us what's in Exhibit 1 now. Yeah, yeah. So it's vehicles parked on the grass, which is vehicle encroachment. And on the left side of the trees, correct? Yes, all vehicles you see on the— On both. That's not a driveway. That's just worn out grass? Is that what I'm talking about? Yes, yes, that's exactly what it is. Exhibit 2 is another photo, evidence that vehicles are parked on the grass. Exhibit 3 is another photo on April 29th of the vehicles parked on the grass. Just a closer photo. This is a photo of Papa, just so you can see the property line, that these vehicles are, in fact, parked on that property. This, May 4th, this is when I posted the property. This is an affidavit of posting, which I posted the property on May 4th, 2026. Exhibit 7 is my re-inspection on May 29th. Vehicles are still parked on the property. Exhibit 8 is another angle of the vehicles parked on the property on the grass, vehicle encroach. Is it the same cars over and over again? Yeah, yeah, the same vehicles. Exhibit 9, this is the affidavit of noncompliance, which was on May 29th, the same day I took these photos. The city is asking for an additional 15 days for them to come into compliance, which would be June 19th, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for $50 a day until compliance is achieved. At this time, I'd like to ask that these exhibits be introduced into evidence. So admitted. Officer Ferguson, this is a vacant lot? Yes. Have you had any contact at all with the owners of this property? Not at all. And you sent a copy of the notice? Yeah, they got certified mail. Did the mail come back? No, they did not. And no one's reached out to you? Not at all. All right, in case 26-000709, I make the following findings of fact-in-law, if I notice is efficient, I find the property in violation of 4.6.16E3, vehicles parked on the grass. Respondent has until June 19th, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of $50 per day may issue. Thank you. Case number two, code 26-000683. The property owner is Gator Linton Partners Limited. The registered agent is James Goldsmith. The property address is 1585 South Congress Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste. Good afternoon, code enforcement Chantel Jean-Baptiste with the city of Thierry Beach. This property, 1585 South Congress Ave., was issued a notice of violation on April 21st, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on May 6th, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on May 5th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for 2.4.13 subsection B building permits. As of May 26th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have five photos. I have five photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce. Exhibit 1 is a photo that I received from the building department, building inspector Carl, of an AC install on the top of this property without obtaining a building permit. So if you'd like, we can have, do you want Carl to go through the photographs? The ones he sent me, that's fine. Yes, yes. Thank you. So we're going to go ahead. Thank you. So you received photographs and a report from the building department regarding this violation, correct? Correct, and that is how you came to know of the violation, correct? All right, so let's call the building department. Thank you. Good afternoon. Yeah, get closer to the microphone. Could you state your full name for the record? Carl Virgilio. And what department do you work in? Building department. I'm a mechanical inspector and plans examiner. Okay. And how long have you been with the city? Five years. And are you familiar with the property located at 1585 South Congress Avenue? Yes, I am. And did you receive information that an AC unit had been installed? Yes, I did. Okay, and then once you received that, you reported to code? Yeah, once I received that information, I contacted, I went on the site and I contacted the owner, and then eventually I talked to the original contractor that installed it. Okay, so you actually went to the site? Yes. Okay, and made some observations, correct? Yes. I'm now showing you it's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? Yes. And what is it? That's the top of the air conditioning unit. And you say the top kind of above the sign that says Dunkin' Donuts, that area that's protruding on top? Yes, that's a picture I took. I got some additional pictures at the time when I gave it to code enforcement. I couldn't find it on my computer. Okay, so let's... But I've got additional pictures of it. So what we're going to do is we're going to go through these, and then we have some new ones here, okay? Yes. All right, City's Exhibit 2, do you recognize this photo as well? Yes. And is that a fair and accurate representation of what you saw when you were on the property? Yes. And that's the closer-up photograph of the kind of lightish, grayish protruding area above the Dunkin' Donuts sign? Yes. All right, City's Exhibit 3? On May 5, 2026, I posted a notice of violation on the property. And that was the code enforcement? Correct. City's Exhibit 4? An affidavit of posting that I posted on property on May 5, 2026. City's Exhibit 5? I re-inspected the property on May 26, 2026. So this is your photograph where you can clearly see the AC on top? Yes, ma'am. All right, so now we're going to go City's Exhibit 6? City's Exhibit 6 is a noncompliance. They have not applied for permit as of... So we're going to go back to Mr. Vergili. So you also said that you took some additional photographs? Yes. I'm now showing as they're previously marked as City's Exhibit Composites 7A and 7B. Are these photographs? Yes. And what do you recognize them to be? Oh, that's a brand-new rooftop package you're in. And did someone provide you with these photographs? Yes. No, they were provided to me. All right, so let's talk a little bit about... Let me just show this, and then we'll talk about your conversation with the contractor. Okay. I'm not sure if anyone's here on this case today. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Okay. This time I apologize to you. Ask that Exhibit 1 through 7B introduce it to Evan. Without objection, so admitted. All right, thank you. So, Mr. Vergili, tell us about your conversation with the contractor and the report. When I first contacted, I gave the contractor, the original contractor, two weeks to come in and apply for a permit. I didn't hear from them. I gave them another call. They submitted a permit. And I talked to the owner in that time period also. But as of the other day, I got another permit. He applied for the permit. The owner of the property or the owner of the Dunkin' Donuts? The owner of the Dunkin' Donuts. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. And the original contractor that put it in. Anyhow, I did get a permit application from the original contractor that put it in. But he contacted the owner and said he was not able to complete the work. So, the other day, I've got... Just so I understand, and I do apologize for interrupting you, when he said he's not able to complete the work, is that the installation of the air conditioner or the completion of the permit? The completion of the permit. But the air conditioner itself is completely installed? Yes. To the best of your knowledge? Yes. So, they literally did the work without actually having obtained a permit? Yes, exactly. The first permit was submitted post-installation? Yes, they did the work without a permit. Okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure it was clear in my head what was happening here. Okay, go ahead. So, anyhow, as of the 1st, I've got a new permit that was submitted to supersede the original permit. So, I've got another air conditioning contractor that's going to assume responsibility, and he paid the fees for the permit on the 3rd. Okay. So, there is... Technically, there is a permit in place now that is paid. It's an application, but it has been fully approved. It has been fully approved and paid for. As of today? As of the 3rd. Which was, I guess, yesterday. Yes. So, why are we here? So, I guess we're just asking that they're found in ventilation. Oh, so you're looking for a finding of that? Yes. Lines date. So, originally, Dunkin' Donuts hired a contractor that installed an air conditioner without a permit. Yes. All right. In case 26000683, I make the following findings of fact in law if I notice is sufficient. I find the property has been in violation of 2.4.13B, the installation of an AC unit without the proper permit. The property has since come into compliance, but after the required compliance date. Thank you for coming in, sir. Thank you. Case number 3, Code 26-000684. The property owner is 400 West Atlantic, LLC. The registered agent is Lawrence I. Blair. The property address is 400 West Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. Go ahead, Officer Lee. Good afternoon. Connor Lee, Clean and Safe Officer with the City of Del Rey. On April 21st, 2024, or, whoa, 2026, I conducted an inspection at the property 400 West Atlantic Avenue, where I observed the business Coffee, Beans, and Greens operating without an issued business tax receipt. A notice of violation was created the same day. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on April 22nd, 2026. And in addition, the property and City Hall was posted on April 27th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to the case. I have been in contact with the property owner and the business owner, two separate entities. And this property was cited under Code Section 110.02, Business Tax Receipt, which states no person shall engage in or manage any permanent business location within the limits of the city, unless a business tax receipt shall have been procured by the building official. As of May 26th, 2026, the property had not come in compliance. And I have attached seven photos or documents to the case that I would like to introduce for evidence. And the city is asking 14 days, June 19th, 2026, for the business to obtain a tax receipt or $250 daily fine until compliant. And so this is a $250 day fine? I'm sorry? Are you asking for a $250 day fine? Yes. So this was taken on April 21st during the initial inspection. This just shows the business has their open signs and seating outside of it as well for customers to sit. And Exhibit 2 just shows more seating on the other side of the building, showing that they were operating without a business license. And that was also taken on the 21st of April. And Exhibit 3, this is the affidavit of posting for April 27th, 2026. And on May 26th, this is when I conducted the re-inspection, there were two open signs for the business and the chairs still remained outside. This was May 26th, 2026. And then here is the interior of the business open for customers to come into May 26th, 2026. And this just shows another angle of the chairs and umbrellas open for customers to sit at. And that was also taken May 26th, 2026. And then this is the affidavit of noncompliance dated May 26th, 2026. And then I would like to introduce these documents as evidence. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yes, my name is James Thomas. I am the owner of the building, not of the business. Mr. Thomas, do you have any objection to those photographs or documents? No objections whatsoever. That objection is so admitted. So it's not a complicated case. It's a business that needs a business tax receipt. I have, if I may, your honor, I've been before you before and had a problem with Mr. Anthony Barber. He has been evicted from 404. Cost me, I think you gave me a break with $9,000 on that one. He's over $70,000 in delinquent rent. And I have been before the court here in Delray. He has supposedly until 5 p.m. on the 13th to vacate my premises. I pray that he doesn't come up with another excuse or another emergency hearing. I've done four. And I'm working on a project in Valdosta, Georgia. So I'm 477 miles from here. And coming down, of course, he never, well, I don't think I'll see him in here. So I guess he doesn't care about it because he didn't pay the last time when I, when he ran up the $21,300 one and the $20,000 one without a permit. I guess. So I'm here to say that I do have from the judge that he is to be out by 5 p.m. If he's not at the 13th. Can you show that document to the city attorney for me, please? Yes, I see that he says that he must surrender and remove, leave the property by June 12th at 5 p.m. Now, I must say we have had other mediation and had to go back and forth. So my prayer is that he will adhere to this one. Mr. Lee said the 19th. I pray that he's out before then. But I'm trying to do everything I can to avoid another payment of the daily fee. I'll tell you what I'm going to do for you. I'm going to give you until the 30th, which hopefully will give you enough time to figure out how to get him out of the property. But after that, you could have a daily fee. So I'm going to give you a little more time because sometimes these things can take time. But that should be enough. Okay. All right. May I, can I, I think I sort of mentioned this before. May I? Yeah, go ahead. What's an owner to do when the business person, I guess, comes to the city and they license them or whatever, they go through whatever, and they don't adhere? Yeah, I can't give you advice. I would recommend you talk to a lawyer if you have one. But, you know, fundamentally, I mean, I can't tell you this. What's that? That fundamentally, the way the law works in these particular cases is that the landowner is responsible for what happens on their property. And if you lease your property, then you're responsible for what the person you lease it does. You know, so there's, you know, to some degree, you know, it's going to require that you take some ownership of who you lease this stuff to. Okay. When the city allows them to do business within the city, and he's had like, he's been evicted on all the times, it appears. I just want to, you know, I did want to say if we could go to the next case, it's the same. It's the same, yeah. It's the same owner, the same type of case. Same person. If we can call it, I mean, I think you've ordered, you provide your order. Okay. Yeah. Well, why don't we, because if it's the same case, then I'll just give the same order. Okay. Okay. So let me, what was the fine amount after June 30th? I hadn't given one yet, but why don't we call that? I will call it. Yeah, let's call it so we have it on. Thank you, sir. So allow me to call. Okay, case number four, code 26-000-686. The property owner is 400 West Atlantic, LLC. Lawrence I. Blair is the registered agent. Property address is 400 West Atlantic Avenue. And again, the code officer on the case is Connor Lee. If we have an admission that the violation exists, we just ask that the special magistrate just pronounce the order. So these are just two, let's just so I understand, these are two separate businesses operating at the same location? And this one is Troy's Barbecue, is that correct? It's a multi-unit building. So we have, just quickly, this one's Troy's Barbecue. So both Troy's Barbecue and Coffee, Beans, and Greens, are they the same owner? Yes, sir. Same business owner. Same business owner. Okay. All right, sir, are you willing to, just to save us some time to concede that the person is operating on your property without a business tax receipt? Yes, sir. All right, I'll give you the same time period. I'll give you until the end of the month, which is June 30th, which hopefully should be enough time for you. I'm going to set the fine at $150 per day. After the 30th, correct? After the 30th, which is a little less severe than what the city was asking me for. But I can tell you if this comes up and continues to be a problem, the severity is going to increase. It's just the nature of these things. Do you understand? I understand. Thank you so much. All right, in cases 260068 and 2600684, I do the same order, which I find the respondent is in violation of Code Section 110.02, which is business without a business receipt. I give the respondent until June 30th, 2026, to come into compliance, or in each case, a fine of $150 per day may issue. Magistrate? Yeah. I'm requesting, can you repeat the case number for the case number four? 000686. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I think that brings us to seven, if my math is correct here. That is correct. Case number seven, Code 26. Case number seven, Code 26-000695. The property owner is Katie Meckler. The property address is 110 Southwest 9th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. However, case will be presented by Code Enforcement Supervisor LaToya Thompson. Good afternoon. My name is LaToya Thompson, Code Enforcement Supervisor for the City of Delray. Mr. Thompson, just for you, is there anyone here on this case? Seeing no one. Go ahead. I'm here on behalf of Code Supervisor Reggie Williams regarding the property at 110 Southwest 9th Avenue, case number Code 26-00695. The property was issued a notice of violation on April 12th, correction, April 23rd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on April 29th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on April 29th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached to the case. I have had, he had had no contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for landscape maintenance, 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, for overgrown landscape and loose trash on the property. Maintenance of building, 7.8.3, for a hole in the structure at the back of the property. Numbering of buildings and structure, 7.1.5, for property number not being posted on the structure. As of June 4th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. There is attached 13 photos of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 7 days for the numbering of the structure. That would put it at June 11th, 2026. And for them to come into compliance. Also, an additional 30 days for the landscape maintenance and building of, maintenance of building, which will be July 4th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If compliance is not achieved, the city is asking for a $150 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1, April 22nd, is a photo of the landscape and partial of the home. Exhibit 2, April 22nd, the landscape and the home inside the picture. You have trash near the property. Exhibit 3, this is the back of the property where you see coconut debris and dry palm fronds landscape. And actually, you can see the hole in the structure. Exhibit 4, April 22nd, 2026, you can also see another part is behind the property with the hole in the structure. Exhibit 5, April 22nd, close up. You have tires on the property. Of course, the hole in the structure. Exhibit 6, April 29th, the posting of the property. And also, there's no numbering on the building as well. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 8 is the re-inspection photo, June 1st, property still in the same condition. Exhibit 9, re-inspection photos, property still remaining in the same condition. Exhibit 10, re-inspection photos, June 1st, back of the property, still in the same condition. Exhibit 11, re-inspection, June 1st, back of the property, still in the same condition. Exhibit 12, different angle, back of the property, re-inspection June 1st, same condition. Looks like they stacked the tire that time. Exhibit 13, a noncompliance affidavit. 13 photos. So as far as the noncompliance affidavits and all affidavits, those are records that are kept in the normal course in business of the city, correct? Yes, ma'am. And you're Mr. Rowan's supervisor? Yes, ma'am. And he discusses that with you regarding the spaces? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And as far as the photographs go, are those photographs, based on your knowledge, a fair and accurate representation of the violations on the property? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Without objection, I'll admit the photos and documents. Thank you. Have you had any contact with the owner? No, he hasn't spoken to the owner at all. Has the owner reached out to the city, to your knowledge? No. Do you believe that 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to bring this property into compliance? Yes. Well, seven days for the numbering, but if you want to just collectively, just put all, everything together on July 4th? Well, I think that, I mean, in all honesty, I think the numbering is the least. Yes, absolutely. The least property. So, I believe just one, so it can just roll at one time. All right. In case 26-0-0-0-6-9-5, I make the following findings of fact-in-law if I notice sufficient to find the property in violation of the listed code sections, specifically the maintenance of the building, the missing numbers, and the trash, debris, and outside storage on the property. The respondent has until July 4th, 2026, to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $150 per day may issue. Thank you. Thank you. Case number eight, code 26-000-691. The property owner is Joseph Lamont, Jr. Property address is 2049 Southwest 35th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJaden. Good afternoon, Special Magistrate Mr. Wagner. My name is Officer Ruben of the City of Derry Beach. I am here regarding a code violation, code number 26-0-0-6-9-1, a driveway violation located at 2049 Southwest 35th Avenue in Derry Beach, Florida, 3-3-4-4-5. On April 22nd, 2026, code enforcement officer Rubenson DeJaden observed a non-permitted, no driveway without a building permit. The property was given 30 days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on May 27th, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was on April 22nd, 2026. The non-permitted driveway was installed without proper permit. The non-permitted driveway violates the City Ordinance 2.4.13, subsection B, that requires permits for the work done. I have been in contact with the property owner. A formal notice of violation was mailed, first class and certified mailed, on April 24th, 2026, with the compliance date of May 22nd, 2026. The notice of violation was posted to the property on April 28th, 2026. I have 10 exhibits I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit number one, this is just showing you on... Is this your initial inspection date? Correct. Okay, and that was on... April 22nd... Thank you. ...2026. This is just showing you the front of the property, the new driveway that was installed without permit. Exhibit number two, this was taken on the same date, April 22nd, 2026. This is just showing you different angle of the property that was installed, new driveway without permit. This is just showing you from the property appraisal that the original new driveway was there, to just showing you the difference. All right, so that's an older picture of the home showing a different driveway. That is correct. Thank you. Let me help you. Hold on. I got it. I got it. I got it. Okay, so is it exhibit four? Exhibit number four was taken on April 28th, 2026. This is just showing you a photo of posting. And also you can see some of the new... That's correct. Exhibit number five? This is just showing you... I posted the property. This is just the affidavit of posting. The date was April 28th, 2026. And that's your affidavit, correct? That's correct. City's exhibit six? Number six. Exhibit number six, that's just showing you that I took a way inspection photo on May 27th, 2026. City's exhibit seven? Same thing. Same date. May 27th, 2026. This is just a different angle of the property. New driveway installed without permit. City's exhibit eight? This is just showing you that the non-compliance affidavit, and that was taken on May 27th, 2026. City's exhibit nine? As of today, this morning, and I did conduct a way inspection for the hearing that just showing you the new driveway without permit. And 10 is another inspection photo? That was correct. All right. And as of today, you checked and there's no approved permit, correct? No permit at all. All right. Thank you. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? Caitlin Soltis. I'm sorry, Kate? Caitlin Soltis. Can you spell that for me, please? K-A-I-T-L-Y-N Soltis, S-O-L-T-I-S. Ms. Soltis, what's your relation to the property? I live there. And your relation to Joseph Lamont, Jr.? I'm his girlfriend. Does he know you're here on his behalf? Yeah. Yeah, I have a paper that he signed, too. Okay. If we can get the paper, thank you. Can you show that to the city attorney? We can introduce this into evidence as well, if he's making some statements. Thank you. If that was the respondent's one. Ms. Soltis, do you have any objection to the photographs or documents that the city would like to put in evidence? No. All right. I'm going to accept in evidence the city's documents, and I'll accept in evidence respondent's document one. Let me just read it. What is the city asking for here? The city suggests that the property owner be granted 30 days, which is on July 4th, 2026, to apply and obtain an approved issued permit or a daily fine of $100 for noncompliance. So in his letter, Mr. Lamont claims that he previously filed for a permit under, and he gives a permit number. Here, do you want to take a look at this? Head back, see you're on the mic. Yeah. I'm going to just presuppose that the city's position is that that permit doesn't apply to what has happened here? Well, he must be, I don't know how long that the permit was submitted, because I spoke to him, I believe, this morning, before he, actually he spoke to me this morning, he said that he was on a business trip. When I was asking him, he said that he submitted all the proper paperwork to the bridging department, and he's still waiting. So he currently does not have an approved permit? Correct. Oh, so this is new. So this is what he's doing right now in response to your, does that make sense? I'm just trying to understand. Because initially when I read that, I was thinking that maybe there was a preexisting permit that he thought this applied to, but that's not what we're talking about here. But it sounds like from what I read in there, he was saying that the structure didn't change, they just had someone put down pavers from a full company, and that he wants to come into compliance and that he never intended to not be in compliance. I mean, she's here if she wants to speak on it. Ms. Solstice, is there anything you want to add here beyond what he wrote in his letter? Yeah, we're just willing to, you know, pay the fine or get the permit. They just put papers down. There doesn't have to be a fine. Okay, sorry. If you're willing to get the permit. There was no change of the structure, which I think that was the complaint, and all the company did was lay down tile. Yeah, but that's going to need a permit. Yeah, so we're willing to do the permit. I just don't think he fully processed that, or I'm not sure what happened on his end. But we're able to do it. Any reason to believe that you couldn't get the permit within 30 days? No. All right, so I'll give you the 30 days. If you can get your permit applied for and approved in 30 days, there'll be no fine. But 30 days happens fast, so you should make sure he gets on it. All right? In case 26-0-0-0-6-9-1, I make the following finding effect on the live fine notice is efficient to fund the property in violation of 2.4.13B, which is the building of this driveway without a permit. Respondent has until July 4, 2026 to bring the property in compliance for a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We move to noncompliance of board order and assessment and fine cases. Case number nine, code 26-0-0-0-4-8-0. The property owner is Stephen and Patricia Sullivan. The property address is 600 Lawrence Road. The code officer on the case is Chantel Jean Baptiste. Good afternoon, Magistrate. 600 Lawrence Road, originally found in violation on March 19, 2026 for an addition built without proper permits. Given 30 days to come in compliance for, or $100 daily fine, the property was re-inspected on April 22, 2026, where the property was found still out of compliance. On May 26, 2026, I code enforcement Jean Baptiste, Chantel, conducted a re-inspection prior to hearing, and the property is not in compliance. I have a full photograph to present to Magistrate that I would like to introduce these photos as evidence. And as of June the 3rd, 2026, there is an incurred fine in the amount of $4,500. And the city is suggesting a lien on property for the amount of $4,500 and a continued $100 daily fine, if not in compliance. This photo is showing the property. This is the initial photos. I have Exhibit 1, where the re-inspection was conducted on April 22, 2026, showing the addition to the south of property. I have Exhibit 2, is the non-compliance affidavit on March 19, 2026. I have Exhibit 3, which was my last re-inspection on March 26, 2026, photo taken of the addition, still present on property. Exhibit 4 is the closer photo of the addition to the side of the property. The amount of photos I'm submitting, the city is submitting as evidence. Ma'am, can you tell me your name, please? Patricia Sullivan. Sullivan, do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence? I don't have any objections to the photographs. I would like to object to fines, though. Hold on one sec. Photographs are admitted. The floor is yours. I knew, I got the first compliance. I told my husband, I work for a CPA. I was, lived at my office from January 1st through April 15th. I told my husband to take care of getting the permit. Apparently, he did not. Until I found this posted on my door, I didn't know anything about it. So, as soon as I got this, I did apply for the permit. And it's in the pre-screening process right now. I don't have $4,000 to pay any fines. It appears like they're starting the permit process. When was this applied for? May 18th or 19th. I don't know. Like I said, as soon as I found this on my door, I started the process of doing the permitting. But it's not as easy to do a permit online as it is to fill out the paperwork and take it in. That is assuredly true. Have you responded to the comments? I gave it to my husband last night so that he can take care of that. I don't think that's proven to be a great pathway to success here. I can't do a drawing. I don't know what he did. He's the one that, and I did ask him to join me here today, but he declined. Ms. Sullivan, what I'm willing to do in this case is I'm going to lean the pre-existing $4,000. But I'm going to stay the accrual of any additional fines for 30 days to see if you can get this thing finished. Once you come into compliance, there's a process here where you can come back and ask for a reduction of that fine. Okay. But that's only true once you're in compliance. Okay. So because I don't want the fine to continue to accumulate, I'm going to stay it for the 30 days until the 4th of July. Okay. That should give you some time. I mean, you can rely on your husband to finish this, or you could hire somebody. But one way or another, you've got to get this done. Otherwise, the fines are just going to keep coming. Do you understand? All right. Sure. All right. Case 26-000480, I'm going to lean the $4,500. I'm going to pause the fine as of today until July 4th. If the property is not in compliance by July 4th, the property will continue to accrue it. The fine will continue to accrue at $100 per day. Like I said, once you bring it into compliance, talk to the code officers, and they can show you what the process is to ask for a reduction. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're moving on to old business. Case number 10, code 26-000-606. The property owner is Delray Beach Associates, Inc. The registered agent is Marsha Stocker Evans Law. The property address is 802 East Atlantic Avenue. The code officer on the case is Connor Lee. This is a status hearing. So what's the status? Well, I could. Okay. So we met, I believe it was April 16th. On April 23rd, when we had an emergency hearing with the tenant, five minutes before the hearing, he filed for bankruptcy. So I notified Connor the same day I emailed him and called him about that. So right now there is a remain stay on there, so we don't have access into his space. Our lawyers are right now going in through the bankruptcy court to try to lift the stay. I did, as per Connor suggested, reaching out to historical. They are aware, and they say, can you at least, Michelle Holland, at least work on outside closing up the holes for the critters. I actually have a meeting with the termite guy at 3 o'clock today on the property to work on that. But as of right now, we legally cannot get into the space. And, Michelle, Ms. Hoyland did forward me the e-mail correspondence from the property wherein there were discussions on the city's request to at least try to come somewhat into compliance by addressing the exterior issues since they're saying that they can't get into the interior. Per Ms. Hoyland, just corroborate what she's saying, that they were going to meet with their lawyer to see what they could do regarding that. But as a follow-up, I spoke to the owner, we're just going to go in and do, you know, we have to put the bait traps. I know there's been a rodent issue at that property, so we're going to address that until we get the space back. So there is a current order that's in place. We have not hit the compliance date based on the order yet. I don't believe so. Well, it's something with the permits, but the work in the space really weren't going to involve permits because it was like drywall and stuff. But the next one, it says by the 17th, June 17th. So I don't believe they've – I don't know about the permits. The first compliance date was May 17th to apply for permits with the historic preservation team to consult with them. They did consult with them, but I'm not sure if any permits are required. They probably need to know what they need to do once they get inside to see if any permits are required. Right. The second part is approved permits. This is a complicated case, huh? It is. So the plan is, obviously, the owner – we already evicted him. He was in 30 Marine Way. We had to get an eviction. He just left. We had to remove him from the premises about two weeks ago. So, again, we're waiting for the lift to happen in that space. The owner already has restauranteurs ready to move in, and they're ready to spend a lot of money to renovate. The owner's father, Bert Handelsman, actually brought all the wood and stuff from London over for the pub. So their every intention is to get that space back to the way – the condition it was. They're horribly upset that it's looking the way it is. So technically – Well, it's already an order of violation. Right. That's what I'm saying. They're already out of violation as of – at least for the first part for May 17th. So we're just asking that the order remain. I mean, I don't even think we need to take any action or do any updated orders unless you want to make a finding at this point, but I just think we – What would I find? Right, exactly. I mean, find that they're still out of – I mean, it's unnecessary. We already have an order, and we need to bring this back in. We could – I mean, I could set this for time certain right here. I mean – Well, there's already a time certain of June. The second part, they still have until June 17th. Right. So I would say if we could bring this in later. I think you just wanted a status based on the gravity of these violations to see what was going on. That is my recollection. Right. We just – we already have an order. I don't think we need a new order. I just think that, you know, if the city wants to bring this in for a lien or a fine or if this is not completely in compliance, we'll do so. All right. Yeah, I'm going to take no action today. Okay. And I hope you'll get this – Oh, trust me. We want to. They're doing every which way to get our space back so we can renovate and get everything. Sounds like you need it. Yeah. So just quickly, should we set up a new hearing date for 30, 60 days, just a status hearing? If you want to track it, but we already have an order. I don't feel the need to do so, but I'll entertain it if the city would like to do that. If it's not necessary, then no. Okay. No. All right. And I certainly will keep you guys posted on the status once we get the space back. We will reach out to historical, take permits at and what needs to be done. The city can set up for hearing if they want, if they have something to proceed on. Yeah, we can set up for a status if there's a new development or if they have another request prior to the – But let's see what happens. Okay. Thanks, guys. Sounds good. Thanks for coming in. So no new orders for this one. No new orders. We're done with this. Well, we're not done with it, but we're not doing any orders on this one, at least for now. There's a governing order on it, so it's just unnecessary. Thank you. I think that's all I have on my agenda. Yes. Correct. All right. Seeing no further business before us, we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.