Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

And I hereby call this meeting 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. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium over here on my left hand side. The city will present its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any of the evidence that the city submits or ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence. And then I will after which I'll make a decision. This is a quasi judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify or you think you might testify or there's a possibility that you might testify, I'd ask you to rise and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in.

By the authority vested in me as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do. Thank you.

Please be seated. Alright. I have the minutes of 11/05/2025. Are hereby deemed approved.

Thank you.

I don't think we have anything on the consent agenda. Right? Or do we? We do. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. So

cases that are closed. We have code 25000303, code 25000312, code 25000409, and finally code 25000418, 1 additional code 25000367.

Okay. That's alright. Go ahead and take the first one.

Okay. Case number one, Code 25000258. The owners are Andrew Emmenenger, Edward Hurwitz, Tabitha Thiem, Rodriguez p Marilla Torres. The property address is 114 Southwest 9th Avenue. The code officer is Reggie Williams.

Why don't we just have him sit at the desk?

Well, do have an IT personnel, I believe.

He's not getting involved.

The mic we need assistance with the microphone.

Oh, try

now. Try

now. Hello.

Hello. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer Reggie Williams. I am regarding a work without permit violation located at 114 Southwest 9th Ave. On 09/24/2025, while conducting a routine area inspection, I, code enforcement officer Williams observed that a bathtub, bathroom sink, kitchen sink, and cabinets store outside on the property. Upon closer inspection and review of city records, it was determined that the property owner removed the bathtub and bathroom sink without obtaining the appropriate permit.

Florida Building Code Plumbing seventh edition section a one zero five point one required states any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any impact resistant coverings, electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code or the cause or to cause any such work to be performed shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The remodeling of a bathroom without an approved permit constitutes a violation of section two dot four dot 13 subsection b of the land development regulations of the city of Derry Beach. A special magistrate violation was issued on 12/04/2025. A a a special magistrate violation was mailed first class and certified mail on 12/04/2025. The compliance date was required by 12/29/2025.

A certified confirmation of receipt was received 12/30/2025. Regular mail was not returned. The violation was posted at the property reinspection on 12/29/2025, the violation still exists. I have four photographs taken of the property in questioning. I would like to introduce these photographs as evidence.

I have had contact with the property owner. Exhibit one, taken 09/24/2025, shows the bathtub and the sink outside of the property. Exhibit two is a different angle showing the the kitchen sink I mean, the bathroom sink and the bathroom tub taken in 09/24/2025. Exhibit three is a photo of the posting to the property, and exhibit four is the affidavit of posting and mailing.

Miss, do you have anything further?

Say it again?

No. At this time, I'd like to introduce the photographs into evidence.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

Edward Hurwitz.

You're the second owner.

He's not here.

Okay. Andrew Emmenegger? Emmenegger. Emmenegger. Mister Hurwitz, do have any objections to these four photographs that the city would like to put in evidence? Nope. That objection, so admitted. Do you have any questions for the court officer? No.

Can I give an explanation?

You can.

So we've we hired a general contractor, and he has put in for the master permits. Just to give you an update, he we have a notice of commencement that we just got signed. So we have a building permit.

Say just got signed. When when was it signed?

It was signed yesterday, but I we do have application for a a building permit. I have the number.

Come on. I I it wouldn't mean anything to me.

It doesn't mean anything? Okay. So now we're doing a notice of commencement. We'll have it approved. If there's I mean, we're gonna go back and forth, and if there's no problems with the plans that we've made, we'll have it approved, I'm gonna guess, in the next couple weeks.

What does the city ask?

So The city suggests that the property owner be granted thirty days to obtain an approved issued permit or face a fine of a $100 per day until the violation is corrected.

That seems to fit your time.

If you could give us, sixty days, just god forbid there's any we go back and forth with the city and we need to make alterations with the the with the plans, I think that would be satisfactory.

May I ask that one question? What was the date the permit was applied for?

12/23/2025.

Tell you what, I'll give you forty five.

K.

Code 25000258 to make the fine findings of fact and life find notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of code sections listed. Failure to obtain a permit for the remodel. Respondent has forty days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $150 per day may issue.

Thank you. Thank

you. Case number two, code 25000341. The owner's name is Giles and Geraldine a. The property address is 200 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit B Dash 133. Code officer is Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon, special manager Strait. I'm code officer Latoya Thompson. Happy New Year. Welcome back. On September 12, code enforcement received a email from the property management company that oversees Jordan Del Mar co condos in Delray Beach.

Proper the property manager stated that the owners at 200 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit B 133, installed a new dock. As you can see here, exhibit one is the demolition of their old dock. Exhibit two also shows the demolition of their old dock. And when I received the information, I went out on October 7 and took a picture of the new dock that was installed. The property owner stated that they installed it without a permit or permission from the property management.

After further research, through EPL and development service staff, there was no permit applied for this violation. This is a violation of the land development code section two point four point thirteen subsection b, work without permit, building permit. I have five photos to present. Present. The fifth one was the exhibit four was taken on December 18, was a, a notice to of hearing, and exhibit five was the affidavit of posting.

The notice was created on October 28, however, issued on 12/02/2025. A magistrate notice was mailed first class and certified on 12/02/2025. Compliance date was required 12/28/2025. Certified confirmation receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned.

The violation was posted on originally posted on 12/12/2000 12/03/2025. However, reposted on the December 18 as you see in Exhibit 4. As of December 2025, a reinspection was conducted through EPL, and it shows no permit has been applied for. I have had no contact with the property owner, however, with the property management team.

As of today, when was the last time you checked for a permit?

The December 29.

And there was nothing there at that time? Nothing. Does the city have anything further?

Would

you like to submit those in evidence?

Yes, please.

Ma'am, you tell me your name, please?

Jerry Skaderi.

One more time, a little slower.

Geraldine Skaderi.

Miss Skaderi, who do you have with you? Yep. Vinny Biassello. And what are your positions? Or

Yeah. So we had make safe the the deck that you see in the photos.

You made the deck and you're the owner of the property? Yes. Okay.

And I didn't receive any of the notices because I haven't

looked at One second. Promise I'll I'll let you tell me what you want me to know. But just procedurally, do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence?

No. Because, basically, I think I have, like, the same thing. I I have ones prior to that so you could see how much damage there is from the termites.

Okay. So I'm gonna accept those in evidence as a city's composite exhibits one through what was it?

Yep.

Five? Five. Yeah. One through five.

Alright. Go ahead. Yeah. I think I can kind of just go through some of the stuff. So, you know, we do a lot of development in the area.

I had spoken to Pat Lyons and Steve Tobias here actually with the property management company, before any of this had started. And in speaking with them, you know, as long as the dimension of of the deck didn't change, some of the structural headings in post were, I guess, remained unchanged, so on and so forth, we didn't specifically need to pull a permit, and that was direct from them. The property management company was there on that day that we had discussed that. So this is going back to 08/18/2025. We had submitted kind of the discussions that we had talked about on the same day with the property management company along with exactly what we were planning to do.

Now when you see the photos here, you'll notice that the structural header and the actual existing post were not actually changed by the fact that we put them back in place, but there was so much termite damage that some of the sistering joists could not remain. So with that and in the discussion with them, we decided to rebuild the actual decking itself, but the post and structural headers were actually the same thing that went right back into the decking, which to our understanding and discussion. And like I said, I I do a lot of, you know, development in the area and speaking with them. We felt and discussed with the HOA that we were going to proceed.

Okay. Property management is also here as well.

Where? If

not miss Thompson, did you prior to citing this permit be required for it? Sounds like additional items that may have been done outside of initial discussion.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you.

So I'd I'd like to just, again, state there was nothing done outside of what was discussed. We had to remove some of the decking to then replace it back together.

Well, you know I'm not a builder nor do I claim to be, but it sure looks like you tore down the old dock and put in a new one.

I have better pictures, you know, to show you how much rock there was, and that was just

I believe you. I I I'm not saying it didn't need to replace. The only question is, does it need a I mean, I I've seen replacements of fences that required a permit that did less than this.

Sure. But but, again, that that's what I was saying is in in the discussion with both Steve Tobias and Pat Lyons, we discussed not needing a permit based on what

we were from them that says that you can tear down basically everything and bring it back without a permit?

I mean, not specifically in writing. Obviously, like I said, we were all there in the meeting. The property management company was there as well.

One moment.

Yeah. I thought that was fine. Give me a second. May I have a moment with Zach? If if we may, we do have representations from mister Steve Tobias that that was they never had a conversation.

He never stated that. So we would like him to come over to put that on the record instead of my assertion.

It's your call. So the city wants to contest the question about whether or not they agreed that you didn't need a permit, so they're gonna bring over the officer to testify to it. What is the assuming for a second that that I was going to agree that the permit was needed, what was the city seeking here?

Thirty days to apply for and obtain an approved issue permit or a $100 fine per

day

until compliance is achieved.

It's up to you. You wanna wait or do you do you wanna get the permit?

What do we do?

We would have to apply for the permit. That's what they're asking for. He they're saying they're asking for thirty days or a $100 fine thereafter.

How long does it take to get a permit? And the the it's already built. It's done.

Oh, mister Tobias is here. What did they say? Did you

I don't think they decided. So why don't we hear from mister Tobias?

Luke, can I just

Can I just swear him in? Let

me swear him in.

Ready? Yep.

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. Yes.

Thank you.

Mister Vise, are you familiar with the property located at 200 Southeast Ocean Boulevard? And just, you know, for memory refreshment, I just want to show you a few pictures of the property, the work that's done to the property. That's exhibit one, exhibit two, exhibit three.

Can I just say something? This was not pulled down as fast as these pictures look.

They took me Ma'am, I

I I promise I'll give you your chance, but I I have to let the city finish presenting. Okay?

Do I recognize this? Yes. Am I familiar with this? In no way.

Do you recall ever having any conversations with property owners located at 200 Southeast Building or either the property owner that's standing here or the gentleman regarding a deck replacement?

No. Neither one of these folks look familiar.

I'm sorry. Alright. And then

The the the Hold on. Hold on. I promise. I will let you talk. Right. I know. You have to let them finish.

I I thought he said Steve Tobias. That's why we brought Steve Tobias.

That was my name I heard.

Yes. Okay. I don't I don't recall any of this. You spoke to me?

From from okay.

I'll let

you guys.

Okay. God.

I'll you killing me here. This is not our procedure. We can't have a conversation back. Right. Everything gets directed to me.

Okay. But before we go there, mister Tobias, what is your position with the city, just to be clear?

Building administrator.

Okay. And for general maintenance, let's say, of a deck, is a building permit required?

For this scope of work, yes.

So for but for but generally, no. But for this type of scope of work, a building permit would be required? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Alliance, could you please state your full name and your position with the city?

Patrick Lyons and I'm an inspector two.

Okay. Mister Lyons, you need to speak into the mic so we can get card.

My name is Patrick Lyons. I'm an inspector two. I do plan review for the city of Delray.

And are you familiar with the property located at 200 South Ocean Boulevard? I'm not. No. Do you recall having any conversations advising anyone that for this scope of work and just to be clear, I wanna show you exhibits one, two, and three would not require a building permit.

I would never say anything with those pictures would not require a building permit.

Okay. Thank you. I have no further testimony. You

can ask questions of either of the gentlemen if you'd like now.

Well, we didn't come to we we sent our builder. So it was our builder who came to speak to the gentleman.

Yes. So I I guess what there was a day we had stopped by. It was 08/18/2025. The reason I'm saying that is because we had sent an email to Tom Perry who is here from the property management company. So I'd hey. He can also attest to this if he wants or if he doesn't. It doesn't matter. But we had walked in. Mike Stom, myself, Joe Farley, and and Pat had come and talked to you guys about the keeping the existing footings of the structural decking on this specific property and then how some of the headers and the joist would work if we could keep it or if not and whether they needed a permit or not. Our interpretation and understanding was that we could move forward without the permit in that position and had talked to the HOA about it on that date.

May I ask a question? Do you have anything in writing from the city asserting that this type of improvement would not require a permit. No. That's what I was saying.

Not specifically in writing from the city. Just from that discussion that day and then the email back to the HOA.

Thank you. Nothing further.

So this Assuming for a second that I'm gonna find you need a permit and I'm gonna find you need a permit, how much time do you need?

I don't know how long

Well, it's it's really just a question about how long will the permit take to produce because the deck's already up.

Can I get someone with expertise from the city tell me about how long this should take to get a permit to approve this already built deck?

Permitting? I mean

Yes. So, typically, you know, you submit a permit. It's gonna go through zoning. It's gonna for a deck like this, structural, there's no electrical or No. Correct. There'd be two reviews, typically a ten day return. So in other words, you apply for the permit. It comes in. It might take a day or two. It comes back to you. You upload plans. Anything else that's required, and then it comes back to us. We review. Again, it would go through P and Z, maybe civil engineering, and structural review. So eight, ten days. But there's some movements in that as well. So maybe a month total. You know, we'll try to get it you know, it could be sooner than that.

I'll give you forty five days.

I was gonna say just so we can draw it up and everything, that would be I think thank you.

Alright. Case 25000341. I make the following findings of fact and the life I notice is sufficient. I found the property in violation of two point four point one three b, replacing the deck dock without a permit. I give the respondent forty five days to come to

000362. Owner's name is John Claristar. The property address is 911 Southwest 6th Avenue, and the code officer is Reggie Williams.

Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer Reggie Williams. I am here regarding work without permit violation located at 911 Southwest 6th Avenue. On 10/24/2025, while conducting a routine area inspection, I called in force officer Williams observed that a fence had been at the property located at 911 Southwest 6th Avenue. Upon closer inspection and review of city records, it was determined that the property owner removed the previous fence and replaced it with a new new one without obtaining the appropriate permit.

This the installation of a fence without an approved permit consists of violation of section two dot four dot 13 subsection b of the land development regulations of the city of Delray Beach. A special magistrate violation was issued on 11/18/2025. A special magistrate violation was mailed first class and certified mail on 11/18/2025. The compliance date was required by 12/29/2025. Certified confirmation of receipt was not received. Regular mail was not returned. The violation was posted at the property on 11/18/2025. As of the last reinspection on 12/29/2025, the violation still exists. I have 10 photographs taken of the property in question. I would like to introduce these photographs as evidence.

I have had contact with the property owner.

Yep.

Exhibit one was taken 08/19/2025. This was from a previous case, but it's just showing particularly what fence was located at the property before they took it down and replaced it.

And we're not asserting that the previous case has anything to do with this particular violation?

It's just to confirm

Thank you.

What was there before.

I got it.

Exhibit two was taken September 2025, and it shows the side of the home to show that it was a chain link fence located there. Exhibit three was taken 10/24/2025, and this is the new fence that was put in place of the previous one. Exhibit four was taken 10/24/2025, and it shows a front the front and the side of the home showing the fence that's there right now. Exhibit five is the site of the home taken 10/24/2025, and it's showing the fence that's there now. October 6 was taken 11/18/2025, and this is the posting that was posted at the property.

Exhibit seven is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit eight was taken 12/29/2025. This was my last reinspection prior to hearing. Exhibit nine is was taken 12/29/2025, and it's showing the fence that's there right now. And exhibit 10 was taken 12/29/2025 and shows the side of the home with the fence.

At this time, I'd to introduce them in evidence.

Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case, John Claristor? Without objection, so admitted.

The city suggests that the property owner be granted thirty days to obtain an approved issued permit or face a fine of a $100 per day until the violation is corrected.

Officer Williams, you said you had some contact with the owner. What did they say?

I spoke with him. He he assumed that he had a permit, but the permit was from 2024. So he assumed that he could still use it to replace the fence, but I informed him that he couldn't because it was already it was already expired. So he applied for a permit, December 12/14/2025. As of today, it's on hold. It needs a a owner builder affidavit. It's required.

So no reason he couldn't get this done in thirty days? No. Alright. In case c, CODE twenty five zero zero zero three six two, I make the filing findings of fact and lifeline notices sufficient from the property in violation of code section two point four point one three b, replacing a fence without a permit. Respondent has thirty days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $100 per term issue.

Case number four. Code twenty twenty five zero zero zero three seven four. The owner's name is William R Burke junior. Property address is 123 East Atlantic Avenue and the code officer is Connor Lee.

Good afternoon special magistrate. My name is clean safe officer Connor Lee. I'm here regarding code case number 00 or code 2500374, a sign and awning requiring permits violation located at 123 East Atlantic Avenue. This property was initially cited on 10/30/2025 by a formal clean former clean and safe officer. As of 12/11/2025, I conducted a reinspection of the property observing the violation still exists.

There is a newly installed sign for the restaurant True Vegan and an unpermitted awning recovery for the existing awning on The unpermitted signage violates city's ordinance four point six point seven subsection f subsection one, signs requiring permits, the awning recover recovering violates city ordinance two point four point thirteen subsection b that requires permits for the work done. I spoke with the property representatives, and the property has submitted the proper permits for the or the proper permit applications for the violations, and they are working with city staff to come into compliance. They applied for those on November 2025 and then another one on 12/08/2025. A reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on 12/12/2025 with the compliance date of 01/06/2025. Their notice of violation was posted to the property 12/07/2000 or 12/22/2025.

That's the affidavit of posting because I handed the notice of violation to them. And I have two photographs or screenshots that I would like to introduce as evidence. And the city suggests that the property owner be granted thirty days to continue working with the appropriate city staff to complete the permitting approval process for the submitted permit applications for restaurant sign and the awning recovery or a daily fine of a $100 shall be placed onto the property until they come into compliance. Thank you.

We have couple more pictures or were they No. Just two.

Just two. So he was just saying that he had those two that he wanted to introduce into evidence.

Alright. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case, William R. Burke junior? Seeing no and without objection, I'll accept the four exhibits into evidence, the city's composite exhibit, one through four. Is thirty days a sufficient amount of time for them to bring this into compliance?

Thirty days is is should be sufficient. Yes. That is what the city suggests. Thirty days.

Is it since they applied some time ago, what?

November 20.

Yeah. What is taking so long?

One of them is on hold and the other one requires an affidavit.

Okay. But no reason to believe that they couldn't get it done in thirty days?

As far as I know, no.

I don't.

Alright. In case 25000374, I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of two point four point one three, specifically an awning without a permit and a sign without a permit. Respondent has thirty days to come to compliance or a fine of up to a $100 per day measure

case

number 5Code 25000384 the owner's name is granite wurthing l l c registered agent is corporate creations network inc the property address is 32 Southeast 2nd Avenue The code officer is Conner Lee.

Good afternoon, magistrate. I am here regarding code case number Code25000384, a zoning certificate of use in interior alterations requiring permits violation located at 32 Southeast 2nd Avenue. The property was initially cited on 11/04/2025 by a former clean former clean and safe officer. The officer was noted notified of the violations through interdepartmental communication. As of 12/11/2025, I conducted a reinspection of the property observing the inconsistencies between the floor plan and the layout approved by city staff and the actual layout and use of the restaurant Kopao noodle bar.

There are also inconsistencies between the approved floor plans on file in the interior structure of the restaurant. The inconsistencies violate the city's ordinance two point four point six subsection c. The zoning certificate of use is required and must be followed. And the city ordinance two point four point thirteen b that requires permits for the interior alterations. I spoke with property representatives, and they have been working with city staff to come into compliance. A reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on 12/17/2025 with the compliance date of 01/06/2026. The notice of violation was posted to the property 12/22/2025, and I have eight exhibits I would like to introduce as evidence.

So before we get into the exhibits, I just want to be clear that there's two separate violations in this case.

Yes. There are. Correct.

Yes. So when we're going through the videos so that it's clear, one is for lack of building permit for interior alterations, correct? And the second one is for operating outside of the approved zoning certificate of

use? Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

And the city is suggesting that the owners of the property be granted thirty days to apply for the approval of the interior alterations within the restaurant and apply for the approval of an updated zoning certificate of use application. And if the property owner does not obtain that those documents within thirty days, a daily fine of a $100 shall be placed onto the property until they come to compliance.

Okay. So let's view the photographs.

So right here, this is just

We can't hear you.

Oh, My apologies. So this is the exterior of the restaurant where there is seating for their patrons, and that is near the entrance. And then right here, this is an interior near the entrance. Oh, this one was taken on 11/04/2025 by previous code officer. And as you can see, there is a DJ booth located or what's looks like a DJ booth located in the area, and that was not allowed for the ZCU.

And then right here, if you look at this, if once we get to the floor plans, you'll see that there was not an existing window for the approved files that the city had. And this is just another angle of the room where some of the exterior alterations took place. And then right here, this is the floor plan that we have on file. And as you can see, some of the tables just don't match the window right here. There is an accordion style, so I don't believe that it was actually there on the plans.

And then the booth is potentially blocking the pathway for the life safety plan as well. And then this is the approved zoning certificate of use. This is what the applicants applied for and asked for. And then oh, sorry. And then this is what was approved by planning and zoning reviewer, Susie Rodriguez. They have a total of a 147 indoor seating. And indoor entertainment must meet the noise requirement section in LDR four point five point two, and outdoor seating requires a sidewalk permit. And this is sorry.

And I was gonna say based on that, that is also in conjunction with whatever life life safety plan would be on file. Yes. And on the life safety plan in conjunction with the ZCU, there's no indication of locations of the DJ booth. Correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

And then right here, this is the affidavit of posting because I was able to speak with the representative and hand them the notice. And I would like to place

these exhibits

as evidence eight. Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Sure.

Cornelio Severino.

I'm

sorry. One more time.

Cornelio Severino, c o r n e l I o.

Mister Severino, what is your position with the Granite Worthing LLC?

I am the director of operations for the restaurant group.

Mister Severino, do you have any objections to the photographs and documents the city would like to put in evidence?

No, sir.

That objection, so admitted. The city may have anything further?

No. I would just like to do you would you like me to say our suggestion again?

Or No. I think that's

it. Okay. Thirty days or a hundred is what you're suggesting. And mister Serena, the floor is yours.

Thirty days works. The only question we had was on the booth, which we removed immediately after we spoke, is on the new ZCU and the life safety plan is that is not a permanent structure. We actually bought something a little bit smaller that's stays away from essentially path of egress. We actually even spoke to the fire marshal to make sure that it's still in compliance. The only question is, because we're already filing it, is does it have to show on the plans as a permanent structure being that it's not it's only used two days a week. Yeah.

I can't We direct we can have him connect him with staff.

But you think you can come into compliance in the thirty days?

Yes. Well, like I said, everything's already been handled. It's more so adding that feature, I guess, to the to the plans with the architect. So Okay. It's just because it's like I said, it's not a permanent structure. It's something that is essentially put together and then removed immediately after use. So we just don't know essentially how to move forward on that.

Alright. I'm gonna give you the thirty days, and I I I would definitely advise you to talk to staff. Sometimes it takes a little longer than you think, so you wanna get moving pretty quickly okay alright case 25000384 make the following findings of fact and life I notice is sufficient from the property in violation of illicit code sections that give the respondent thirty days to come to compliance or a fine of up to a $100 per day may issue good luck sir thanks

Case number six code 25000394 the owner's name is Rosebud Ray Shops LLC. The registered agent is c m rack inc. Property address is 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue. Code officer is Connor Lee.

Alright. Good afternoon, magistrate. Hope you're not sick of me yet. I'm here regarding code case number code 25000394. Oh, my phone is it is a parking lot restricting requiring permits violation located at 245 Northeast 2nd This property was initially cited on 11/07/2025 by a former former clean and safe officer.

As of 12/11/2025, I conducted a reinspection of the property observing that the violation still exists. The parking lot for the commercial building had been restriped but without the proper permitting. As you can see right here in exhibit one, the unpermitted parking lot restriping violates city ordinance two point four point thirteen subsection b that requires permits for the work done. I spoke with property representatives and they have submitted the proper permit application on 12/02/2025 for the violation and they have been working with city staff to come into compliance. A reissued formal notice of hearing was mailed first class and certified mail on 12/17/2025 and with the compliance date of 01/06/2025 or 2026.

My apologies. And the notice of violation was posted on the property 12/22/2025, but I handed it to the property manager. So this is a posting affidavit. And I have three exhibits that I would like to introduce introduce as evidence. And the city suggests that the property owner be granted thirty days to continue working with the appropriate city staff to complete the permitting approval process for the parking lot restriping or a daily fine of a $100 shall be placed onto the property until they come compliance.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

Javier Rosas, r o s a s.

So, Rosas, do you have any objections to the three documents the city would like to put evidence? No. I don't. That objection, so admitted as city's composite exhibits one through three. So the city says that you're you're working on it, they wanna give you another thirty days. Is that a sufficient amount of time for you, sir?

I believe so. We we received the review of the paperwork that we submitted. We already paid yesterday for the permit, so we're just waiting for the inspection.

Fantastic. Alright. In case 25000394, I make the following findings a fact on life. I notice it's sufficient. I found the property in violation of two point four point one three b, specifically the striping without a permit. Respondent has thirty days to come into compliance or a fine of up to a $100 per day may issue. Good luck, sir.

Thank you.

Case number 72025003887 the owner's name is four hundred West Atlantic Avenue LLC. The registered agent is Lawrence I Blair. Property address is 404 West Atlantic Avenue. The code officer is Connelly.

Good afternoon, special magistrate on or this is noncompliance hearing. On 06/18/2025, a special magistrate found a violation for the city code section two point four point thirteen b exists on the property 400 West Atlantic Avenue or 44 West Atlantic Avenue, my apologies. And the violation is an oversized tent built in the courtyard of the property without the proper permits. The magistrate ruled that the property had thirty days to submit the proper permit application and sixty days to obtain the approved permit or pay a daily fine of a $150. And on October oh, my apologies.

I I have my exhibits wrong. But on that is the board order right here for the case when it originally came. And then on 10/21/2025, I conducted a board order instruction and observed that the tent was still in the courtyard with an unimproved permit. And I have oh, this is the posting affidavit for the notice of hearing for today. And I have three new documents and one photo from the previous case to submit into evidence.

And as of today, 01/07/2026, the case is noncompliance and the daily fine has accrued to the amount of $21,300. And the city suggests lien the accrued fine amount to the property for a total of $21,300 and continue the 150 daily fine.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

Yes. My name is James Thomas.

So what's going on, mister Thomas?

I have a tenant that for the past three months has not paid his rent. We issued a three day back on November 18, and we're now with attorneys to have an eviction. And it is Kimberly, Curry Smith, the PA, and Wyatt Payne out of Miami Shores, my property management. We have tried to work with this young man, and it's not going to work out. So I'm out of about $40,000 in rent, and it really would pose a hardship ship on me and my family to pay $21,300.

So if I am permitted, I'd like to request that somehow I'll given an opportunity to I'm I think I'm told that I may be able to have the lead have it go through so that it doesn't get laid on my property and that a decrease

in the I generally don't give advice because you shouldn't take advice from me, but there is a procedure to reduce the size of the lien. Yes. But it's it's only available once the property is in compliance. Right.

Okay.

Well, I'd could you give me some time to

give if you give us one second. Seems like the supervisors wanted to make another recommendation. I I did based off what the property owner has explained, the supervisor just advised me that they're willing to pause the lens to see if he can work this out in thirty days, and then we'll come back. We'll set it to the next available hearing for them to resume if it hasn't hasn't. So if we can set it for a status check-in thirty days because don't wanna lose track, we do understand, according to supervisor, the hardship that he might be facing.

Mister Thomas, what the city is suggesting to me is to and there there's no process to reduce the lien at this page because the property is still out of compliance. But the city is willing, at least suggesting to me, that I should pause it so it doesn't accrue any further over the next thirty days to give you time to bring the property into compliance, and then we'll set it for another hearing. Okay. Does that work for you?

Oh, yes, sir. I I would appreciate And I must ask the question. Once even if not evicted, and then I know that you

I'll handle the eviction. The the only thing the city is concerned with and, hence, I'm concerned with is whether the property is in compliance. So either the tent gets permitted or the tent gets removed. I think those both would bring that into compliance. Alright.

Well, you'll give me thirty days.

That is correct. And, you know, like you said, you can't give him legal advice, but I would advise you talk to your counsel about what your rights are as a landlord Right. Right. On your property.

So Yeah. But we'll what once it's removed, then I come back or you're gonna set a date for

me to

come in the case code enforcement department once it comes into compliance as noted on the the notice of violation to contact them immediately once it's brought into compliance.

And then you reschedule?

Yeah. Correct.

We'll we'll reschedule once you come in compliance, and we'll get everything settled.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Alright.

In case 2025003887, I'm gonna stay the fine for thirty days pending the next hearing, set for status hearing at the next scheduled special magistrate hearing after thirty days.

Thank you.

Case number eight. Code 25000038. The owner's name is Michael and Lisa Lichko. The property address is 45 NW 8th Ave. Court is the the the

five, a special met or special magistrate found that a violation for the city code section four point six point nineteen subsection f subsection one two two existed on the property 48 Northwest 8th Ave, Delray Beach, Florida. The violation is two trees on the property being hat racked without the proper approval. And so here is my exhibit one. These are all from the pre or these are from the previous case in previous exhibits. And the prop the magistrate had ruled that the property had thirty days to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property into compliance, and there was no daily fine included within the order.

On 12/16/2025, a special magistrate inspection was conducted and it was discovered that the property owner had not met with the proper city staff to bring the property into compliance. And this these are also the photos taken from the previous case. And then these are the new exhibits for this case. There are five. And as of today, on 01/07/2026, there has not been a meeting between the staff.

And so this is exhibit one, the posting or actually, excuse me, the board order stating from the first case where it says right here, the owner has thirty days to meet with city staff and to bring the property in compliance. And then exhibit two, these were taken on December 22.

From the code board, not from the magistrate. Right?

Yes. Okay. It's this it wasn't my original case.

Just give me a second. I was actually I think the question, in all candidness, to the special magistrate, this is what I was discussing with staff. This was initially brought before the board that the special magistrate would then then have jurisdiction to hear any, I guess

The short answer is I don't know. I mean, if the board didn't exist, then I think

Correct. That would be a different and and that's what I was you were talking about something to that nature. But if it's but if we still current, we have board. Yeah. So, actually, if we could reset if we could continue this, we just wanna look further into it. You know, don't give advice to that time.

But there's a technicality that prevents me from ruling on this. I think if you know, I don't give advice, but you might wanna see if you can resolve this before it comes back.

I'd like to proceed. I don't have time to take this is the third hearing in regards to these trees in two years. I have a statement. I have evidence. I'm prepared to move forward and render a warning just I received a special magistrate hearing. I had a board hearing on the fifteenth or sixteenth that was canceled on the second, fourteen days prior. And then two days later, they said I have a special magistrate hearing. I was found guilty, never even had a hearing. I would really, really like to present my case and either get

this thing put together. Even if I wanted to hear it, which I'm not sure that I can, but even if I wanted to, I can't relitigate the underlying you you have to appeal that. You can't you can't come back at a fine assessment hearing essentially and say the original finding by the magistrate was wrong. That's already been decided. That's law of the case. The only question here is whether or not you've complied with the order, which I think is pretty clear that you haven't. But again, this was a board case, not a magistrate case.

So what about the suggestion? If he really wants to proceed and he waives his right to any appeal based off jurisdiction of who's hearing the case, the city, if that would be allowable, we could move forward.

You can waive jurisdiction. Can't you?

Yes. You can waive. So if if he really is persistent in proceeding and is willing to waive his any appealable rights to that, then

Alright. If you wanna proceed, I'll proceed.

You it's but we have to get that on the record and make sure he understands what that means.

Do you understand that proceeding in front of me, you're gonna waive your right to appear before the code enforcement board?

Yes.

And the right to appeal any decisions made? I think you have to tell him.

Yeah. And you're gonna waive your right to appeal my jurisdiction to hear this?

How can I waive my right to appeal? Doesn't seem fair.

You can appeal the fact whatever my finding is, but you can't appeal my jurisdiction to hear the case if you wanna proceed.

Proceed. Okay.

Alright. Perfect. Okay. So

this is exhibit one of the code enforcement board order. My apologies. And as you can see, thirty days to meet with city staff. This is exhibit two taken on December 22. This is when I posted the notice of hearing to the property. This is exhibit three just to show the trees and just to show the trees and how they grew back as well. And then exhibit four, this is the posting photo of when I posted the notice of violation to the property. And then exhibit five is the affidavit of posting.

Can I see a copy of the board order?

Yes. One second. Madam clerk, if you can I'll come and get it. We just need a copy of the board order from the last Okay. We'd have to get the the board.

Okay. You have time? Savvy. Yeah. Hey. Sorry. Is that better?

Yes. Did. One more. Alright. That's good. Okay.

So it's it should be noted it wasn't a time frame or a fine amount. Was just requiring him to meet with city staff. Thirty days to meet

with them.

Okay. Does the city have anything further? Just arch. What's the city asking for here?

City landscape inspection.

So at this point, the city is asking since he's out of compliance with the board order for a fine of

Oh, a $100 daily until compliance is met or until compliance method is approved appropriate. Oh, excuse me. Sorry. Destroyers can't hear me.

To begin immediately Yeah. As of the board order as of the special magistrate order today.

Oh, as of the special magistrate order today, a $100 daily fine until a compliance method is approved by appropriate city staff. That's

an odd order. Alright. Go ahead, sir.

Nearly two years ago, I received a tree trimming warning by code officer Delinda Wachowski, which was issued as a 41616. I hired my landscaper to trim overgrown trees. They were causing damage to my house and my vehicle entering the driveway. I was not present

Mister Thomas, let me explain to you what I can't do because it seems like you're going in a direction that I can't help you with. What I can't do is I can't go back and unfind what the code board found. So the code board already found that there was a violation on the property. So if you're going to argue to me that you're not in violation, it's not gonna make any difference. They already decided that. I don't have the authority or the power to go back and undo what they found. Do you understand? What the purpose of this hearing is is to see whether you complied with that. K.

May I continue? Sure. On our last violation hearing, August 14, we established the board declared that the trees grew back healthy. No fine to be imposed, and this was a simple misunderstanding with my landscaper who just over trimmed some trees. On that last meeting, we established that a certified arbor support was submitting was submitted validating the trees will grow back in good health to the city on 07/09/2025. It was submitted five weeks before gave mister Glover five weeks to review and close out this violation, but coincidentally failed to acknowledge on that hearing meeting on August 14. I have a copy of the report today as well as the receipt.

You have a copy of what?

The arbor's report. And I'm gonna object to the recitation of the facts. It is obvious from the findings of the order that it was found in violation, and the board did not accept accept the arborist report as a finding of nonviolation.

So what the order requires you to do is to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property in compliance. So let me ask you. Did you attempt to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property into compliance?

In accordance with four sixteen nineteen, which which they cited me on, it says, in lieu of replacement, the property owner may have the option of contracting with a certified arborist to provide remedial pruning to the disfigured tree over a period of three years and effort. The report was submitted. There there there's there's no path. We submitted an order report.

The owner to meet with city staff to find a process to bring the property in compliance. Did you do that?

The city has never reached out to me. I don't know how it's my responsibility to coordinate meetings that this this just as much as I had this meeting today, I should have been notified for a hearing. I can't I can't coordinate a my own meeting to fix my own violation.

You can't pick up the phone and call?

I

Look. I didn't write this order, but what the code board ordered you to do, it says the owner, that would be you Yes. Will have thirty days to meet with city staff. Now if you came in here and said, I tried to meet with city staff and they didn't meet with me, that would seem like a pretty good reason for you not to comply. But what you're telling me here is that you didn't even try.

What could we possibly discuss other than the arbors report they submitted to library?

To get that far. The question is, did you follow what they told you? If you came in here and said, met with city staff and we couldn't agree, then I could probably listen to that. But you didn't even do the one thing they asked you to do. Now I wouldn't have asked you to do that. I probably would have come up with a very different kind of order. But be that as it may, this is the law of the case. This is what they ask you to do. So the question is, did you do it?

There was no meeting made.

Alright. Question to the city attorney. They didn't put a fine amount on here.

So I think since they didn't put a fine on there, now that he's provided jurisdiction to the special magistrate to proceed with the case, I think that it's the case is open and we can make a modification or amend the order or make a different submit a different order based on the failure to comply with the original order. So it's they if this did not occur, then there's gotta be some type of penalty. So the city's position is that since it did not occur, there were no attempts in it. Honestly, it doesn't sound like he's trying to attempt to meet with city staff, then we would ask that you provide a daily fine until this property is brought into compliance.

This is a one. This is what I'll do.

Do have permission to say one more thing before we're

Go ahead.

I received the citation to correct it in July. The citation basically said you are guilty of a four sixteen nineteen to pass. Remove the replace the trees or provide an arborist report. Several weeks later, we had the hearing. I did time stamp and submit the arborist report as needed within the allotted time frame to, appease the violation.

I feel like what you're telling me is that you feel like you complied with the code section, so the board an error in finding you in violation. Is that what you're trying to argue to me?

Yes.

Okay. The appropriate procedure for that, if you believe the board was in error, is to appeal that order, which you did not do. So this then becomes law of the case. It's already decided. And like I told you before, I can't undo the board order. They said you are in violation. Now you don't believe you are, but the board does, and they made that finding. So I am bound by that finding. I can't undo it. Again, the only question to me is did you comply? And it's pretty clear you did not. But I'm gonna cut you a little bit of a break here. This is what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna give you ten days to comply with this order or a fine of $100 per day will issue. Good luck.

Thank you, ma'am.

Number 9, Old Business 2023013368. Owner's name is g c g real estate holding LLC. The registered agent is Kenneth Goldberg. Oh.

Oh. Thank you.

The property address, Southwest 10th Street. It's a vacant lot.

Fixed in the PowerPoint.

Code enforcement supervisor Phil Cartwright will be presenting the details of the case.

So just for clarification, if we would ask the magistrate if we can hear all three of these together, 2023

will call them.

Yeah. If we could just hear them all because it's literally the same argument for everything.

Is the And let

him present his first and

then I'll

You can just

Sir, can you tell

me your

name, please?

Oh, pardon.

Mister Costello. Hi.

You wanna make your appearance, sir? Yes. Tell me your name.

Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions representing the owner.

The city has asked me to hear all three cases together. Do you have any objection to doing that? No. Not at We'll hear them all together.

Okay. Let me let me call.

We should probably

Included in this this case, we have 2023013454 and also 2023013515. So this case is, you know, we're here because the property owner has a request.

What we wanted to do is just quickly show you the, for recollection purposes, the violation. I'm sure you remember, we've come back on a couple status checks on this case. So this is just a few pictures. There's nothing new to introduce. The property owner does have a PowerPoint that they would like to display. We can have staff upload their PowerPoint. Yes. And they can Thank you. Thank you.

Can I see the governing violation order in this case as well?

Pardon? You want to see the order for all three cases if while she's in that, we have madam clerk

for a they're all the same. Right? I probably will do. I just wanna see when I when I

My I'm I'm not sure if certain things have come into compliance or not. There's a a lot with the case.

It's a lot. Yeah.

Here. Oh.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Diana. Great.

Night to you, mister Costello.

Thank you.

Everybody, staff. Jeff Costello again, representing the owner. So we want to just make a a brief presentation regarding, this the violations. This, of course, is All County Paving on 1180 Southwest 10th Street, which was established in 2014. Some photos of the property from the perimeter, not from interior.

So as a little bit of background and as the backup and the chronology list timeline I've provided to you, this goes back to 2023. And so Where? At that time yeah. We're we're we're making progress. At that time, there were a number of of issues, and the client immediately moved forward to try to address those.

Of course, this is this did involve three conditional use requests as well as an amendment to the site plan and various permits also through d e through derm, DEP, and so forth for eight facilities. So just as you see on the screen, we are making progress. And and, in May, the conditional use in May 2024, the conditional use applications were submitted. We've been through the process and dealing with, coordinating with staff to address technical comments. The planning and zoning board recommended approval of the conditional uses July.

City commission approved those. We have submitted a plan application, and also plans have been submitted for site plan certification. Plat is pending. I think there's one more sign off. And permits middle, however, is pending the plat approval and site plan certification. We cannot submit for the permit until those are finalized, which are pretty close. The site plan was actually approved. The plans were submitted for certification and holding off till we get the plat approved. We have an issue, and I I do wanna address two of the violations. I believe there were perm there was a permit issued.

I'm gonna it's on page three of the agenda, those two items. So the site plan was an an administrative approval. That basically has been approved. Stamp certification is pending. And so, again, it's it's been approved in essence along with the conditional uses.

And then also, I believe back in 2023, there was a permit issued as far as the protection of the fire code issue with the bollards that were installed. I believe those been finalized, if if you all can double check on those, so that that those can actually be removed from the list. But I think the one that really remains is the permit, which, of course, it's a chicken and egg kind of thing. You can't apply for the permit. And I know it's on as you stated earlier, you don't release the liens until the all the violations have been corrected.

So, of course, that can't occur till all the improvements are CO'd. So the issue that my client is is run into, and I provide the backup from bank, is the lien. There's a refinancing for the construction loan really related to the construction and the improvements. The lien is is an issue with getting that refinancing. We're requesting to release the lien, but to allow the issue of perhaps a bond until all the improvements are completed, and then we come back and revisit the process to reduce the lien. So in essence, that would be for

the I don't that's what I was going to say. I don't believe that I'm not sure if we have the authority to

initiate I mean, I can bond. I I can stay the fine.

Bond, but it But there So we could just have mister Carra clarify the outstanding fines and liens to date.

So but the outstanding fines for so for

Yeah. There were case number 368,

it's $298,027. And for the case, $298,027. Right. And for case ending $751 $202,100,097 dollars and 27. $4,048,500.

Or we can confirm with the clerk. But either way so I just wanna be clear on what mister Casella is asking the master chief to consider. So you're asking that your client would front basically a $100,000 on a bond in lieu of the city releasing a lien that will be released back to your client when this is all in compliance? I'm just not sure what we would do at that point because they would still be outstanding.

Well, you as you have a financial guarantee, in essence, related to the lien. However, the lien is clouding the title, which will not allow the bank to finance refine it him the client to refinance on property.

So the city's concern I'll just say what the city's concern is. The city's concern is property is a still out of compliance. And the lien, as it relates to the financing, has to do with kind of CO ing the property after everything is constructed and after everything's done at the final. This doesn't have anything to do with the permit, which is what I think is outstanding in this case. So just to be clear on what the compliance is in this case.

Because the compliance is to receive an approved permit Correct. Not to complete all work pursuant to the permit, which would then seal the property. So it's kind of like we're jumping. That's not even so I don't so I guess the city's position is that, for lack of better words, their need for financing associated with construction is a tangential to them just getting a permit from the city.

That and let me misunderstand. If that's the case, then so that's okay. So we can't apply for the permit yet until that's it. So if that is actually the case that it's not CEO of the improvement to be in compliance, if it's just a matter of getting the permit, then then that our issue is able is that is being able to go ahead and apply for the permit then. So If that is the actual

So let's

put the

board order. What are if you can see the board orders.

If I might. So, basically, currently right now, I guess the unity of title that they're trying to to get for the plat for all the property?

What it it's just the plat document. So they did not wanna accept the unity of

title plat. Once that's completed a 100%, then you can apply for the permits.

Okay. And then if we apply for the permit, then then that everything's satisfied, and then we come back to release the lien in order to refinance to start construction approved permits.

I mean, the CEO closed that.

I mean, I So

that's that's the Hold

on a sec. Just I So. CEO. The lien belongs to the city. Not to me. It belongs to the city. It's their decision whether they want to release a lien or not. I don't release liens. I can reduce fines and I can reduce liens if you're in compliance. But once the lien is established, it belongs to the city.

Procedurally, our understanding is we'd have to come since the lien was issued by by special magistrate to remove it. We this procedurally, would come to you. If that's not the case, then administratively, the city would be able to release and accept the bond from what I heard with mister Cartwright. Mhmm. Right? So what what he stated is that when he said the permit and CO'd, that mean you don't CO until all the construct improvements are constructed. So the refinancing again comes into play, the construction funding for the project. So

Can we just see see the the board board order? Orders? I think that would clarify

that everything Is

that approved permits? Can you give it

Not construction complete? That's a different and in Madison, I believe

they need Actually, don't

have the development services that you guys provided to get from me.

This is my day for unique circumstances in code

enforcement. Madison, if you if you could state your name and say your position for your decision. Sure.

My name is Madison Brown. I am the development permit manager for development services. In my experience, an approved permit is a permit that has been reviewed by all required disciplines within the city, and a mar a permit that is marked as approved is ready to be issued.

And then they have time to simply put work that's authorized in the permit, and then that's when the CO will be obtained? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Can I take that? I

think it's actually on the other side. I went through the other side too before I flipped. I think it might be a good policy going forward on the the fine assessment to have the order with every case.

Thank you.

It's because the governing document. That's

that's not the one.

I think I did see it in there, though. Do we wanna take a few minutes?

No. I haven't. I just wanted you to take a look, Jeff. Richard and Bella. I'm gonna take a look. I'm just gonna show them some special last week. I want to show it to you first of all.

Looks like a permit.

Looks like a permit. Right?

Okay. We might have a chat about how

to do

this in the future. Yeah. Okay.

Alright. We're we're ready to go back on the record. The city has filled through the files and confirmed that the order stated that they had a certain amount of time to actually obtain a permit, not to obtain COs for the work completed. So the city's position is that they're we would just object. They don't they don't have permits. It's not right for any type of request for reduction, and the city's objecting the city has not agreed to a lease and lease.

Mister Stone.

So I would respectfully request that the city reconsider and that we we actually wanted to apply for the permit a couple months ago. But we understand that with the plan had to be finalized, which is more ministerial based on statute and so forth, we worked out what we needed to. We're ready to have it signed off, and we're ready to apply for the permit. And so, you know, I understand what you say about about the lien, and and there's other fine this there's a a situation with the right refinancing, and it's not a so we not a matter of just just delaying

the action. I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. And and I So and I and I also recognize that your client has done a lot of work. All that is true. And so I'm not trying to be obstinate to them, but what you're asking me to do, I cannot do. What you're asking me to do is remove a certified lien. I can't uncertify the lien.

Well, if I thought it was a a decision the city would need to make.

Right? The city's lien. They can do what they want. Okay. So But I I can't uncertify it.

How about if it is released and and then is there a way that if it is released and there's not that activity within a certain time period I mean, we're gonna apply for the permit

The place where I can exercise authority at this Yeah. Stage of the case is if the property is in compliance, I can do a lot with the existing fines and liens. But the property is not in compliance and not in dispute. The existing lien belongs to the city. I can't reduce it. Essentially, to remove the lien, I'd essentially have to reduce the lien to zero.

If the city would modify the request that it be that a building permit be submitted, delete the the the violation that were at least submitted and in the permit review process, could that then be be

Well, there's a lot of things you could negotiate with the city, but I I I can't negotiate with you. I have to follow the law and the code. And from from

I I mean, I know that our director was here, but from my understanding, the city is not willing to do that. We definitely appreciate all the work that has gone in, and we all know that this has been long standing. I'm familiar with the client, the attorney, everyone on the case. Right? Because it's been that long of a case, but it has been that long. And I think initially, the magistrate gave grace for six months in the first place on this case, understanding all of the issues. So here we are nearly two years later. I you know, he's asking for the approval, I mean, at this point. I We understand this is unique. We understand that there's a lot of circumstances.

We understand that there's a lot of board approval and authority and commission that had to go into this. But we're asking for an approved permit, which then they could then come in and request any lowering of any fines or liens that would assist with the financing that according to the the refinancing issues that they expressed in the background of the presentation.

Yeah. I think it and in in my experience too is that, you know, when you deal with a code in violation of an expansion of use on a property, there's no way you're gonna get any resolution within sixty days. You can't even apply for a permit when you have to go through the development review process. So maybe in the future, those things can be considered before putting a lien on a property. I think it's it's when people are showing good faith in in getting resolving the issue, I think that that should be something that's really considered rather than slapping on a lien because then it does cloud the title and you have to refinance to keep the funding.

Respect your position. I I will say having having been here for for some time, a lot of grace was shown at multiple times to give time for this to be resolute to be resolved. And I suspect the city would probably argue that it could have been resolved with a much simpler approach than the one that your client has taken, but I look. Again, I don't judge. Whatever you want to you do with your property, you do. The question is, what can I do under the code and under chapter 162 at this stage of the case? Because remember, all of these documents are a law of the case. There's a governing violation order. There's a governing continuance order. There's a governing lien. You know?

That's the lien.

Yeah. What I'm allowed to do under the code in chapter one sixty two is reduce it if your your client is in compliance. I can't go back and and undo what's already been done unless there was a violation of law

Yeah.

Or code at this stage.

And there

hasn't been one. I mean, you I mean, I will say this, and I don't know if the city's gonna, you know, be happy that I will tell them, but the city can negotiate negotiate their rights with you whenever they want to. Right? They have they the city the city has a lot more leeway here than I do, but it doesn't sound like, you know, just judging from what they're saying, it doesn't sound like they want to. But but and that's okay. They have know, the city's entitled to its, you know, to defend its its prerogatives as well. Yeah. But if you want a remedy from me, then you need to be in compliance.

Alright. So we procedurally that we came because that that was the understanding. We'd like to continue the conversation with staff. And if they wanna negotiate, they can on their own. They don't necessarily need the

match strictly. Come back with an agreement. You know, long as both sides agree, generally I issue those. Mhmm. But you'd have to come up with something the city could agree to and I'm not sure they're they're I I don't speak for the city and I and I certainly don't speak for miss Warren, but but it sounds like what you presented isn't what they want to do.

Okay. If we can somehow have the ability to at least apply for the permit, that's

You can get into compliance, come back, and we'll talk.

Alright. I can okay. Hopefully, that's within thirty days. So

I hope so too.

Thank you.

There's no order to issue here. So That's it.

Right? Yes. So just to be clear, are you are you saying that we don't need an order? Do you need an order denying their request? Or

I'm not entirely certain what their request was. But Well

They were requesting that

That that was the re release the lien and provide a bond. So

Yeah. I I can't do that. If you want, you know, it'll give you something to appeal if you'd like. I I can issue an order deny.

No. It's

not. It's not on

the record. It's just what

you know? Deny. And who

would then who would the appeal to?

Right? You got a lawyer. I'm not gonna give you, like, the the stuff. Alright. Alright. Alright. Deny. Bye.