Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Chair in my office. It comes. Alright. Here we go. I feel

my board. Welcome to today's code board. Thank you for coming to today's code enforcement board meeting. This board is empowered to hear evidence to reach findings of fact and conclusion of law for the purposes of resolving cases that come before it. A finding of violation may lead to the assessment of daily fines in the form of property deeds. The board is always interested in statements that will help us make the determination in each case, and we are interested in compliance rather than levy and fines. We will hear all cases in the order that they appear on the agenda, beginning with new violations, flight assessment cases, and status updates, and concluding with cases for which persons are seeking fine reductions. We can begin by having all the people who will be speaking before the board 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're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So you

do that? You may be

seated. Awesome. First case. Oh, great.

You wanna do the roll call?

Oh, gotcha. It's been

six weeks. Can

we call the roll, please?

Sure. Wayne Pasek. Here. Steve.

There you go. And

the changes to the agenda are as follows. Postpone cases are as follows. Twenty five zero zero zero zero twenty five, 25000036, 20 50 0003 be able information information that 76254125255140, 25000001, 250-0004, twenty 500007, twenty 500012, twenty 5000017, twenty 5000018, twenty 500019, twenty 5000025, twenty 5000026, 20 5000037, and 25000040. First case, case 1253857. The property owner is Laura Pepe Joseph, 47 Northwest 11th Avenue, and it's presented by code officer Delinda Witkowski.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Delinda Witkowski. I'm a code officer for clean and safe with which is in violation of code code section section four four point point six six point point nineteen nineteen subsection subsection j, subsection two, subsection a and b, which states that all trees and palm trees which are dead must be removed prior to hurricane season. Tree removal permits are also required. A landscape violation was issued on 04/19/2025.

The violation was mailed first class and certified on 04/24/2025, and the compliance date was due for 05/20/2025. On May 30, I reinspected the property, and the violation still is still existing. Due to not full compliance, a a notice of violation was issued via first class and certified on 07/10/2025. The certified mail was not received. The first class mail was not returned.

Posted at the property and at City Hall on 07/10/2025. I did knock on the property on at the door. There they answered, but they were tenants, and they did not feel comfortable signing the posting. So I did post it and take a I did take a picture. Re inspection was then conducted on 08/09/2025. The violation still continued to exist. No permit was pulled. The tree was cut down, so they were partially in compliance, but they did not pull a permit, which was required. Not only it was stated in the ordinance itself, but also in the narrative that I wrote that a permit was required. I have four photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence of this property.

I have had contact with just the tenants, not the property owner.

Thank you. At this time, I'm now showing you what's been previously marked as exhibit one for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? I do. And what is it? So that

is the palm tree that is dead.

And when was this photograph taken?

This was taken on 04/19/2025.

And just to be clear, it's the brown, guess Yes. Tree looking item. Yes. It is. And the center of the photograph? Correct. City's exhibit two for identification purposes?

So this was the reinspection photo on the first part, which was taken on April 30. As you can see, the tree was removed. However, permits were not pulled.

So okay. So completely removed or partially removed?

No. It was completely removed.

Alright. And that was on May 30, you said? Correct. Thank you. City's exhibit three for identification purposes? So this is

just our reinspection photo that we have to do prior to coming to code board, which was taken on 08/09/2025, showing that, again, the tree was removed. However, not nothing was pulled in our system.

And did you, as a part of your duties and responsibilities, take a look at the city's systems to confirm that no tree permit had been applied for? It did. In fact,

I have it printed here showing that the last three inspect last permit that this address pulled was in 1999.

Alright. At this time, the city would like to introduce the three exhibits into evidence.

I make a motion that we accept the photographs presented by the city one through four into evidence.

All in favor? Second. Second.

No. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Did you can I did you want to introduce the permit screen as well that you printed?

As as exhibit? Yeah. Sure.

Thank you.

So that would be exhibit five. Your

honor, I'd like to accept exhibit four into evidence.

Second. All of favor.

Actually, correction. That would be exhibit five.

It's it's more. We only have three.

There's a lot in there?

Yep. No problem.

I am sorry.

The board. Has them. I'm not sure if there's a a homeowner present for this today. We can call the galley, please.

Is anybody here for this case?

If the board doesn't have any more questions for miss Wachowski, what's your recommendation?

So the city recommends that we give them thirty days to apply and obtain a permit or $50 per day thereafter for noncompliance.

Do you me said you still have to talk to these people.

Only the tenants. I do not know where the owners they don't live there.

Question? Make a motion.

Hey, mister chairman. I would like to make a motion. Respect the case number 25Dash3857. I move for finding a fact and conclusion of law that there is good notice and that the violation of the tree removal without a permit exists based on the evidence and the testimony the officer that and that the permit is not pulled, still exists. The offending party shall correct the violation of obtaining a permit within thirty days or pay a fine of $50 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance.

The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board. And in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you.

Case number 2253933. The property owner is Evanilda Pesoa. Property address is 245 Southwest 11th Avenue and it's presented by code officer Jude Lacount.

Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer Jude v Lacount the second. I am here regarding a non permitted fence installation located at 245 Southwest 11th Ave. On 04/22/2025, I inspected the property where I observed the property owner removing the chain link fence and replacing it with a wooden fence without a permit, which is in violation of code section 2.413 b, which states building permits is required for all items as set forth in the current Florida building code and chapter seven of these land development regulations as amended. A building permit shall be sought via application through the development services department.

A general notice of violation was issued on 04/22/2025. The violation was made first class and certified mail on 04/24/2025. The compliance date was required by 05/22/2025. On 05/23/2025, I reinspected the property. Notice of former hearing was issued on 06/04/2025.

Regular mail and confirmation of receipt was not received. Posted at the property and city hall on 06/25/2025. Last reinspection was conducted on 07/02/2025. And as of today, there has been no changes. And I have had contact with the property owner, and the current permit status of today, the comments said that the property owner needed to show where the fence needed to be placed, and they have not made any adjustments. The city suggests obtain an approved permit for the new fence installed on the property for in thirty days or a $100 daily fine for noncompliance.

Thank you. I'm now showing you has been previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes. This photo was taken on 04/22/2025. It shows that a new fence has been installed. And as of this day, there were no current permits on file.

And that is kind of like the tan fence in the center property? Fence. Wooden. Okay. Thank you. City's exhibit two for identification purposes?

This is taken on 04/22/2025, and it just shows another angle of the fence, and it shows how it's right on the side wall.

City's exhibit three for identification purposes?

This is a picture taken of the mailbox just to identify that I am at property 245 Southwest 11th Ave, and you can also see the old chain link fence, and you can see the wooden fence has been installed.

So the the chain link fence to the left of the right vehicle that's on the same property?

Yes. It was originally around the whole entire property, and then one day they just removed it and started installing the wooden fence.

Okay. Thank you. City's exhibit four for identification purposes?

This was taken on May 23, and it just shows from a wider angle. It shows that the fence is still there, and, also, there is no permit on file as of that day.

City's exhibit five for identification purposes.

This is a picture that was taken on 05/23/2025, and it shows a complete view of the property. And you can also still see the chain link fence at the front of the property in the in the distance of the

City's exhibit okay. At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence.

This case was also given a thirty day continuous from before to give the property owner time to do to make the adjustments. But January I mean, on July 10 was the last time that inspector Storis spoke with them and left comments, and no comments were adjusted. So that is why we're here today.

Okay. And if if we can get a motion to accept the exhibits into evidence.

Mister Mister chairman, I move that we admit the documents in exhibits one through five of photographs as shown submitted by the city.

Second. All

in favor? Aye. All opposed? Pictures are ready.

Mister chairman, I was trying to listen to the testimony. Is this a replacement fence or a permit issue?

It's a Exactly.

Is it the problem with how it's installed or just these violations? It's just the permit. Correct?

Yes. It's the permitting. And also, as I said, when you install a fence, there are certain setbacks and regulations that you have to follow. And just by viewing the picture, it's right on the sidewalk. So I can visibly observe that they're already in the wrong room.

So, mister chairman, am I understanding

sorry about that. I to ask

a question.

I wanna understand that he's saying there could be violations, but because he didn't get a permit, they're

not there. Violation for us is

a permit.

Got it. Thank

you. No problem.

I we don't have a map or a a pop up map or anything at this point. But the here's the my question is, are the is the new wooden fence on the property line or someplace other than on the property?

So can can I just gear us back to the specific violation that we're here for? Right now, you have to

that they need setbacks, and I'm that's exactly what I'm questioning.

Right. But we we haven't even gotten there yet because the process is what we're here for is a fence a per installing a fence period without any type of permit.

That's why I asked the question. Right. Just the permit. Yes. Yes. We're not trying to figure out where it

should be. Once they apply, we'll figure out the setbacks and all of that and whether it's even allowable. But we can't get there without the actual permit approval.

Mister Chu. Has there been contact with the owner?

Yes. On various occasions. They even came to cohort last time where the extension was presented to give them opportunity because they're close to completion, but they didn't make any adjustments. And that's why I made note that Thomas Story did put in in our program system that they needed to identify exactly where the fence is gonna be on the property. So they haven't corrected it.

Alright. Thank you. And they need to do that to get the permit for the fence?

Yes. Which will make it approved.

When was the thirty days given?

The original thirty days was given last code

And the compliance date was May 22? Yes. Thank you.

Awesome. Any other questions?

They're not here. Anybody here for this case?

I got one question. So did we give him a violation

last time,

or we

just gave him an opportunity to fix it, and now he's right back?

No. They originally had a violation, but when they came to Cold War because they were right at the door to finish, they were given, as I said, a courtesy extension or a continu by the board to allow them to do that, but they didn't come in and correct those steps. So now we're back here again.

That being said, what's your recommendation?

The city suggests thirty days to get the permit approved because I'm not exactly sure what other details would be required. But after that, a $100 daily fine for non compliance. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to case two exists on the property. Property. The offending party shall correct all violations within thirty days by obtaining a permit or pay a fine of up to $100 per day or each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board.

And in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property.

Mister chairman, I second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. I

have a question before we proceed. Oh, you're not here for you, sir. For mister Wagner. Is statute, like, thirty days to comply or can there be any set time? And also the amount of a fine.

Yep. So chapter one sixty two dictates that you give a reasonable amount of time to comply. So thirty days is not mandatory. You can decide. It's actually the board's judgment about what is reasonable. The the fine amounts are typically up to a certain amount. The based upon the size of the city in chapter one sixty two. I believe in Delray, what's the limit?

$1,000 up to for fines.

Okay. So But but, again, it it's the the the amount is discretionary to you. The what the the city recommends to you is what they think is appropriate.

Because in in my thought process, and I don't mean to speak out of line, my thing is that the average person that has an issue with a fence, they may not know they need permits or interior work, they may not know it. But the thing is, just if you have to go and get an architect or do a survey or, you know, apply for permits, a thirty day window, it seems like we see the same cases over and over and over, where if it was, like, a sixty day window and, say, a $200 a day minimum fine, it would incentivize the people to, hey. I gotta get this done in two months. At least that allows me to budget for it or prepare for it. The

the short answer to your question is is that that's really up to the board. Right? The it's the board that decides what they think a reasonable amount of time given the facts as you understand them. Remember, the facts in any case, right, because, you know, we're talking about the standard. There's no real standard. There's just what you think is appropriate. What is I guess, let me rephrase that. What you think is a reasonable amount of time for them to come into compliance given the facts as you understand them. And that is that is up to you. And so in a in a case you may agree or disagree with the city's assessment, you may also inquire to the city as to how they reach their conclusion and some of the facts that you think are important that might make you reach a different conclusion. That's all well within your discretion.

I just for personal experience, I just went through a permitting process in another municipality, and it literally took me eight months from cradle to grave to get permits and inspections done for a two day repair.

Yeah. I mean, it it you know, the the what is reasonable may not be apparent, right, on the face of the facts as you understand them. So it is perfectly okay for members of this board to inquire, you know, if you're asking them to comply by this date, can you tell me whether that's reasonable given the city's processes? Right? You can ask a question like that. It's perfectly okay

to do that.

But remember,

in in this case, for example

Okay. Just just as an example This case is conclude Yeah.

Just not talking about details of it. But this case or any case that we typically see has started typically months before it comes to us. Mhmm. And the code enforcement officers usually made multiple attempts to contact them, let them know what needs to be done, you know, take steps. And so by the time he gets here, they should know what they need to be doing, and they should have been started on doing it.

So With that said, it is because because sometimes it feels like if a case case took a while, a hypothetical case. If it took a while, then it's okay to be short on the time frame. But still remember, the requirement under chapter one sixty two is that you give them a reasonable amount of time to come to compliance. What that means in plain English is that you cannot set a compliance date that is impossible for them to comply with. You have to give them a reasonable amount of time.

Okay. So

I have

a question on that. So should we have a discussion on that before we make the motions?

But we've already

It's already cases.

We're we're talking about any case. We're just talking about about stuff in in in theory. It is always reasonable. There there are a couple of places where it is reasonable for this board to inquire as to compliance time reasonability. When you are examining the witnesses, you can ask questions about, well, if compliance means x, well, you know, what is it typical for someone to accomplish that within the time frame of the city? That's always reasonable. When somebody makes a motion with a time frame in it, which is typically most of our motions. Right? When somebody seconds it for discussion, you can also have a discussion or make inquiry as to whether or not you think the motion itself is giving a reasonable amount of time. So you can make those inquiries in multiple times. And and Nick, by the way, that is part of the judgment that you're supposed to bring here, which is what is reasonable.

Yeah. I just one little side note is that watching other meetings and what reading on the social media forums, it's like, oh, you know, code enforcement isn't doing enough, which being on this board and seeing what staff does here, they do above and beyond. So I I take that as an as an insult, and it bothers me. So it's just like they're oh, we don't see code anywhere. Well, they're out working.

You know? It's and as soon as someone has a problem in their neighborhood, that's they want, like, immediate attention. So it's just if there's not so much time, like, bottlenecking and just chasing these cases and giving people more time and then being able to go out and enforce more, you know, just try to make everyone's life easier.

Yeah. And I think because we spent a little bit of time talking about your job and judging when it's reasonable, and that that is part of your job. But, of course, your job is also to try and encourage compliance, right, with the code. So you have to weigh, you know, what it is, you know, the as we say, the stick and the carrot in trying to get compliance because ultimately, that's the goal is to get compliance. Right? Interesting. Thank you. I think we're ready for the next one.

Yep. Okay. Case number 3, 253953. The property owner is Martin Saramar, LLC. Registered agent is Henry Dean. Property address is 122 Southwest 12th Avenue, and it's presented by code officer Jude Lacount. Good

afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer, Ju v. LaCount the second. I am here regarding a non permitted iron fence install located at 122 Southwest 12th Ave. It was done on 04/25/2025 where I inspected the property and I observed a new iron fence being installed around the front of the property, which is in violation of code section two four thirteen b, which states a building permit is required for all items as set forth in the current Florida building code and chapter seven of the land development regulations as amended.

A building permit shall be sought via application through development services department. A general notice of violation was issued on 04/25/2025. The violation was made first class and certified mail, 04/28/2025. The compliance date was required by 05/25/2025. On 05/28/2025, I reinspected the property.

Notice of formal hearing was issued via first class and certified mail on 06/04/2025. A certified confirmation of receipt was received on 05/14/2025. Posted to property in City Hall on 06/25/2025. A reinspection priority hearing was conducted on 07/02/2025. As the last reinspection, the violation still exists. I have photos taken of the property in question. I have had contact with the property owner.

Okay. Thank you. I'm now showing you it's been previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes. This photo was taken on 04/23/2025, and I observed the preparation and start to install the iron fence.

Okay. Is that the kind of the post, the iron post?

And that's also the truck, the work truck.

Alright. City's exhibit two for identification purposes.

April 23. This also shows the work truck and the equipment and I mean, the material that is gonna be used to install the fence.

Alright. That was scanned on April 23.

Right?

Yes. City's exhibit three for identification purposes?

This is a picture that was taken on 04/23/2025 that shows the start of the installation of the iron fence right against the sidewalk.

Alright. So this is exhibit four for identification purposes?

This was taken on May 2025, and this shows that the fence has been completely installed since the last inspection and no permit is on file.

And just just to be clear, notice was provided on prior to the completion of the fence. Correct?

Yes. That was issued in May.

Alright. Thank you. That's exhibit four. Again, this is on May 28?

Yes.

Alright. Is this you said it was completed? Yes. Alright. City's exhibit five for identification purposes.

This just shows another angle, and it shows another portion that has been installed for the iron fence on the gate.

At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence.

This was also a case that was given in continuance for corrections. And today, me and the property owner, we we met with mister Story, and he informed him of the exact details that needed to be corrected, which was not the property owner's fault. It was the contractor who he hired did not communicate in a timely manner as he was supposed to. So the property owner has been doing what they're supposed to, but the reason he hasn't crossed over now is because that his contractor did not follow-up with mister Thomas and complete the details that were given.

So based based on this, did we we introduced the five exhibits. Correct?

Yeah. No. We have not.

Okay. Can we introduce the five exhibits into evidence, please?

Mister chairman, I'd like to, introduce city's exhibits one through five into evidence.

Second. All in favor. Aye. Opposed? Picture it.

And I believe the homeowner is here, but just before we even get there, what is your recommendation considering this new conversation that you've had with the homeowner?

To give him thirty days to have it approved because he's completely aware now of the comments that need to be corrected by his contractor that's installing the fence or a $100 daily fine for the noncompliance.

No further testimony from the city.

I have a question on that testimony.

Yes, sir.

Is the city stating its position that it should be feasible to obtain the permit within thirty days?

Yes. Because Thank you. Through the conversation we had today and everybody, all parties agreed that it's an obtainable to complete and make those adjustments to the offense.

Thank you.

No problem.

Sir, is there something you'd like to say?

Yes, please. First, I'd like to apologize because English is not my first language.

What is your first language,

sir? But I can I try and if you don't understand?

Well, I just wanna be have you understood everything that's happened here today? Yes. So you have understood?

Yes.

Okay.

Do we need to sperm in and

He's I believe were you sworn in? Excuse me? Did you get sworn in earlier?

Yes. Before.

I just wanted to be clear because he said about English as a second language that he fully understood everything that's happened.

We we also provided him a physical printout. Mister Story provided him, and we showed exactly Yeah.

I do like to to say thank you for mister Georgia and another guy because he tried to understand me more and try to explain more than another people for the city.

Okay.

But I have some questions because I have a situation. It's two different houses. It's two different premises. And the city allowed I I don't wanna make sure nothing wrong in the future. I have a problem with the I'm not inspect to press the home and make me give me hard time because this is allowed for the the permit for the house 126 and not not allowed for 122.

Asking about the the the permit for to put the fence back. And the first time I tried to to resolve this with the city, but the lady attended me, she not was so explained very well, I think. And she not because she told me, I take care about the house 122. I'm not make for 126. But today, I I realized with the city have some mistake for the city, I think.

Okay. So now do you understand everything that you have to do?

Yes. Because why if the same house, both sides is the same, the department for the enforcement asking you to to put 20 feet back if the 126, the city allowed to to stay in the same place is now.

Okay. So that's something that The

building department.

The building department that we're we're working

speaking about is in his plans for the gate, there's a sliding closing gate. So, basically, what he's speaking about is at one of his properties, the part that he has to correct at 122 was approved at 126. And the planner was letting him know that, hey. That was two different set of eyes that viewed two different plans with two different personal numbers of properties. So that's why he's saying he was confused.

So, again, considering all of this, is this something that's feasible to get done within the third days? And I don't believe we got your name and address, sir, for the record.

My name?

Yeah. And my address.

Marcus Martins. 159 Andover Street, Lomas, Massachusetts.

Okay. Thank you.

I have one more question more more concern. Because I tried to resolve this long time ago. I went to see, talked with the department, with the department. They told me to not show nothing. Have a I think have a miscommunication for both departments because in I don't know the date exactly. They told me it's okay. I I still receive a letter in Massachusetts. Last month, I take to fly, coming here to resolve. The the board gave him more thirty days to resolve that. And, also, I think cannot found a a good company to do defense because they're not they don't just tell me, oh, I have some issues with the city hall.

They're not exactly tell me exactly what's going on. And today, I realized something is wrong because I still do not understand why the city allowed to do defense in 01/26, not 01/28 01/22. Sorry.

Oh, no. That's okay. It's the board chair.

Yep. No.

I don't have any questions. I don't have any more questions for him. Okay.

Anybody wanna make a motion?

I have

a question. Yes, ma'am. You feel that thirty days is enough time for you to get this done? You just mentioned that you had a thirty days extension already in your family.

I will try the city if they try to to not help me, but treat me looks like I'm paying for the bills, for the tax for the city because me and my wife choose this house. We choose for this house five years ago, the best city to invest in the the the in in Florida. And I was in the future, he'll live here if we got permits. If if I think it'll be it'll be enough. Okay.

Have a question. Yes, sir. Was I to understand that he attempted to apply for a permit before putting the fence in? Yes or no?

The permit for 01/26 okay. Basically, the property is only showing the property as

in question.

On this property, on this case.

Yes. But the property is a duplex, so he applied for all the permits except just for the fence for the 122. But he's applied for all other permits, so that was just the the misunderstanding of the missing piece.

So he didn't apply

for 01/22. He Thank didn't apply.

I needed to understand.

Thank you.

No problem.

So is there a permit for 01/26 and not for 01/22?

Yeah. Now it's a permit for 01/22. It just hasn't been approved due to the comments that have to be fixed that he was made clear today

and I think she was asking for 01/26 not 01/22.

Yeah. 01/26 is fine. It's no violation.

So the right. So okay. Thanks.

Mister chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to case number 25003953. I move for finding a fact in conclusion of law that there is good notice of violation that the permit was not properly applied for. Violation exists on this property. The offending property the offending party shall correct all violations within thirty days or pay a fine what was the city's recommendation?

$100 daily fine.

Of a $100 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought back into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board. And in the event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property. Second? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you,

sir. Change your date to me.

Sir?

Case number 4Code25000003 property owner is Patrick bowling and the property address is 512, Cortez Lane presented by code officer Chantelle Jean Baptiste.

Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement Chantel Jean Baptiste. I'm here regarding a landscape violation on 06/09/2025. I inspected property where I I'm sorry. Located at 512 Cortez Lane.

On 06/09/2025, I inspected a property where I observed vehicles parked on the landscape, which is in violation of code section four point six point sixteen subsection e subsection three, which states no vehicle encroachment over or on any required landscape area. A landscape violation was issued on 06/18/2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified on 06/18/2025. The compliance date was required by 06/24/2025. On June 25, I reinspected reinspected property.

Subsequently, a notice of former hearing was issued via first class and certified on mail on 06/25/2025. Regular mail was not received. Posted at property and city hall on 06/25/2025. A reinspection prior to hearing was conducted on 06/25/2025. As of last reinspection was on 08/12/2025, the violations still exist. I have five photos taken of property in question, and I have made contact with property owner on 06/12/2025.

Thank you. I'm now showing your husband previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. What does this photograph depict?

The photograph shows two vehicles parked on a landscape and also on the Jeep. You can see the landscape is already dying for the long period of the vehicle being parked on here.

And that was on June 9?

Correct. 06/09/2020

exhibit two?

My reinspection was taken on 06/25/2025, and

the vehicle was still on the landscape. City's exhibit three?

On June 25, I also posted on property.

Thank you. City's exhibit four?

This was my last inspection taken on 08/12/2025, and I also spoke with the property owner on this date.

City's exhibit five?

Same photos. No compliance. 08/12/2025.

Thank you. And as a part of your duties as a code enforcement officer, do you oftentimes drive down this area and view the property? Yes. And this has consistently been this way. Correct? Correct. Alright. At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence.

I move that we admit the pictures submitted by the city into evidence exhibit one to

five. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Victor?

Does the city have a recommendation?

City recommends seven days to remove all vehicles off the landscape for a $50 daily fine.

And you talked to the resident? What did they say?

On August 12, what he said, what, he will remove the gold one immediately, but he's gonna need time for the white jeep. I asked, why is that? And he was like, oh, there's a piece that needs to be repaired. I don't know, to be fixed in order to move it.

The vehicle's also yeah. Inoperable.

Didn't know it inoperable because the tire were inflated. But when he told me that, that's when I learned that the white one is inoperable.

Thank you.

Questions? Did the owner fully understand the extent of the

He understands. He understands.

And and what was the reason other than the part? Is that the only reason why they have not been compliance in past two

months and trying? Immediately. He said the only reason the white one won't be moved immediately is because there's a piece that's missing that needs to be fixed in order to move the vehicle.

And that was

as of the twelfth? Correct.

And the seven day to comply will be effective today, seven days or from Correct. Thank you.

Questions? Can we ask if there's anyone present here for this case? Just if you wouldn't mind calling out.

I didn't understand what the city's recommendation was.

First of all, is there anybody here for this case? No. Seven days and

Seven days to remove the vehicle off their landscape.

To move those cars.

I I'm puzzled, and I I I don't like the way this keeps on going. The car is inoperable. Years. Have him tell him he has to tow it. Don't leave it because he's waiting for a part because he's gonna say, well, this part, I can't find anybody to sell me this part. I'm gonna wait and wait and wait. Maybe I'm gonna find a part to repair the car. No. Have it towed to a a service station where they can have it and fix it or tow it someplace to a storage yard. That's I'm unhappy giving them an excuse to not remove the vehicle because it's inconvenient for

So would just wanna Wait wait a second, Shantel. Let me let me answer that question here. I again, I just wanna redirect us back to what we're here for the violation. The violation is parking on the grass. The only reason why this even came up as to what the rationale was, we're not giving them an excuse. Right? Our goal is compliance, however they want to do it, whether it's towing, whether it's moving, whether it's fixing. Our goal is to just get have them remove the vehicle. Know, I I would just like to put out there, it's not like we're giving them excuse. She was just simply asked what the property owner told her.

I I I understand. But my opinion is that he's not gonna move it for quite a while, and he's gonna rely on making excuses to the inspector why he can't move it. And that that's just to me, they were just they're just laughing at us. They're just saying, I'm sorry. It's inconvenient for you to move with this car. That to me is not he's known about this for how many months? How many months could he have spent to get the automobile fixed so it works or tow it away if he doesn't want it, but I'm just unhappy just giving him more and more leeway.

All we're all the city's proposing is that we give him seven days of leeway and and then then begin finding.

We can't make a suggestion to him.

Well, we can make a suggestion how he can he can fix things, but we can certainly tell him here's the deadline to get it fixed.

I think we're just being, you know I have a question, mister chairman. By not being able to help ask.

Jimmy, may I? Sure. Thank you. Mister chairman, with reflect to the advice of our counsel in a hypothetical situation based on the other board members concern of reasonableness, I think that I can deduct by looking at the photographic evidence and listening to the testimony of the officer that it's very plausible and possible for the respondent to correct us within seven days. Right. I think it would be really easy to do. I don't see the challenge with what the city's asked for.

I could correct it in five minutes. Move the gold car, push the white car on on

the driveway, and you're done. But in fairness Right. We wanna consider the common sense.

But that was my If he

if the

homeowner moves the vehicle into the parking the driveway, is that gonna be a potential another violation, or would that actually bring him into

compliance? I don't think that is.

Okay. So so just to just so I can keep us on track. In any given case, it's quite possible because you become familiar with the codes the longer you do this. Right? That you may see something that you think might warrant a code violation, but it is not the job of this board, and it is certainly beyond the scope of this board's authority to cite for any new violations. So what I mean, I I know sometimes we have a tendency to do it. God, heaven knows I I sometimes wanna do it, but you have to just stick with what the city has cited them for. If there is another violation that may or may not be in existence or may come into an existence, that is up for the city to cite it and then bring it back to this board.

And how much daily five did you recommend?

50. 50 of it.

I'm gonna make a motion. I'll make a motion.

Mister chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 25Dash00003. I move for a finding of the facts and conclusion of law that there's good notice and violation with regards to his vehicle parked on the existing property. The offending party shall have seven days to correct the violation, and I would suggest a fine up to $200 per day for each day. Therefore, after noncompliance. A respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If a violation is not brought into compliance, the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board, and in event of noncompliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property.

Second. Second. Anybody wanna discuss this?

I do. Yeah. I agree with the daily fine. I think $20 might be stiff. Can we compromise?

See how quickly move

a car $200 a day. There's a compromise. Yeah. Well Time is money, and code enforcement is busy.

I know what people's lives are like.

It's been set. This is an easy fix.

Now we take a vote?

If there's no well, I mean, determine you if there's no more discussion, then you can call it.

I would just make an explain to people that don't think about it. Seven days, the inspector could go and reinspect and determine after seven days, the violation hasn't been cleared. And at that point, we're saying we're gonna put a lien on the property of $200 a day. But remember, I think, until the next board meeting, we can impose a lien.

So I believe the question what we're asking for a $200 a day daily fine. If we wanted to proceed with the lien, we would bring it back in for a finding that the property is still out of compliance, and we would request authorization to lien at that point.

I I I understand that. I'm saying that's a month till we get the chance to consider that.

But they still owe the fine. It's whether

or not it's been actually leaned on the property.

I agree. That's what I'm saying. It takes a whole another month and another board meeting to find out the work and come up. And probably, maybe if they're smart, they'll get it done in fourteen days and we'll only find them for a few days rather than a whole month because it took us a while to get around to deciding whether or not we need to lean.

I I know I know the process can be can be cumbersome, which I guess is the is the point that mister Cohen is trying to make, and and that is a fair point for him to make, though. Structurally, the lien starts running the moment your order has been not complied with. The Day eight. Yeah. So so, hypothetically, if you said seven days, on day eight, the lien would start running. I mean, the the fine would start running. It's not a lien on the property until this board comes back and liens the property, but it's not your your initial order is operative.

Right. Okay. That helps. Thank you. We'll take a vote.

We have a motion. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye.

Motion passes. I'd just like to say I feel this board's very sympathetic to structural issues sometimes, electrical, plumbing, permitting, but this is an easy fix.

Yes.

And this is really consuming codes time where just push it over 10 feet and it's done.

Or get it towed.

It's less than $200 a tow car.

This meeting feels a little bit like a workshop, which is good, I guess.

Just trying to help people.

Yeah. I think in the abstract, and again, not referring to any particular case, in the abstract, it is perfectly reasonable for you to tailor the fine to what you assess as a reasonable incentive for them to come into compliance within a time that it's reasonable for them to do. The operative word here being reasonable. Right? And that is that is exactly your determination. That that's exactly your job, which is to make you know, to assess what's the gravity of the violation, how long should it take them to come into compliance, what what what is likely to produce compliance, and what is a reasonable amount of time for them to do it. All those things are are things for you to weigh and to conclude.

It's a big discussion in the city about revenue stream. Mister chairman. Meetings. Yes, sir.

Oh, can I can I ask the attorney for reference just to remind people on the board and new members what the frame of the potential fine is from $0 to what dollars? It's

it's set by statute under chapter one sixty two, which has to do with the size of the city because of Delray's size and what's been adopted by ordinance. This board is authorized to fine from as little as $1 no dollars, actually. I guess you could zero fine it if you wanted to, up to $1,000 per day. If it's a repeat violation, my recollection, I believe, is that's up to $5,000 per day.

Yes. And then it's a irreparable irreparable, it's $15,000 for total for the fine.

Yeah. So structurally, it depends why why they're bringing it, if it's happened before. And and you're always you're always authorized when you assess such things to assess the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the respondent. These are the things that you weigh when you're assessing those fines.

Thank you. Quick question.

Follow-up on that, mister Wagner. So there's no limit on how many days, just the total fine is capped at 15,000?

No. It's actually there there is no cap Okay. Per se. There is a question in the So this could go 365 get into the case law here. There is there is some question about whether or not a fine that's been running for a mighty long time might be unreasonable constitutionally insecure, but that's a that's a distant kind of universe. But but theoretically, the cap is a daily cap. It's not a it's not a longevity

cap. That's

a compliance. And I would just

point out to somebody new, we see some cases in here where the amount of time that the fine has been ignored is sometimes unbelievable. Yeah. These things can

definitely and and this, you know, I mean, we talked about structurally how you assess the fine, but, of course, this board, also today might actually do it, is also empowered to reduce fines where appropriate as well. And so so this board can come back should the person petition and then you can weigh things again like their actions, their gravity, and make a conclusion about what is appropriate.

Thank you. Bless you. You you may see if you stay. See, we're workshopping. The thousand the thousands of dollars that these lanes get to is absolutely amazing. Okay. The people are

Case number 5, code 25000033 was postponed prior to this hearing.

Actually actually, we need a motion from the board to postpone the cases. So we're my understanding is that they've been working with staff. So we're just asking the board for the to postpone the case to the next available code enforcement hearing.

Chairman. Mister chairman, I'd like to make them interrupt you again?

Your turn. Mister chairman, I'd like to make a motion to case number 2500033 to postpone this case to further notice.

Second.

Before we second, do we want further notice or to the next available code enforcement be meeting as the city requested? What is

your recommendation? The next available code enforcement here.

Amend that motion to the next available

Code date.

Code date.

I'm sorry. Awesome. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed?

K. Case number six, code 25000038. Property owner is Michael and Lisa Lichko. Property address is 45 Northwest 8th Avenue, and it's presented by code officer Delinda Wiekowski.

Good afternoon, code board board members. My name is Delinda Wiekowski. I'm a code enforcement officer for clean and safe with the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding a tree pruning violation located at 45 Northwest 8th Avenue. On 03/26/2024, I inspected a property where I had observed two severely head racked trees, which is in code violation of four point six point nineteen subsection f subsection one to two, which states that the purpose of pruning of trees is to allow for uniform and healthy growth.

Pruning of tree limbs on a regular scheduled basis will improve tree health. However, severely cutting back branches and canop and canopy or hat racking is expressly forbidden. A landscape violation was issued on 07/02/2025. A violation was mailed first class and certified on 07/07/2025, and the compliance date was for 07/23/2025. A certified letter confirmation was not received.

Irregular mail was returned. Posted at the property and at City Hall on 07/03/2025. It was posted because no one was home at the time. A reinspection prior to hearing was conducted on 08/13/2025, which was West yesterday. And I have five photographs that were taken of the property that I would like to introduce to you guys as evidence.

Thank you. At this time, I'm not showing you it's been previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. What is this exhibit?

This is actually from property appraisal. It's just an aerial vision of the property that was taken on January, I believe, of twenty twenty four.

Okay. So let me just ask you a couple background questions. As a part of your training experience, do you typically look the property appraiser website to identify the nature of a property before a certain date?

If it's relative to the case, yes.

Yes. It's but that's a part of your training experience. Correct? And in this particular case, was it your area that you patrolled to identify the particular trees in question? Yes. Was. And once you identify those particular trees in question, do you believe that they had been hat racked? Correct?

I actually, on this case, I had been called there from my my bosses at the time, and they called me to take this case on.

Right. But when you went there and you saw it, it looked like the trees had been het rye. Correct? Alright. So as a part of your training experience, did you try to identify what the trees looked like before you went there?

Well, it's it's an area that we drive by practically every day. So, you know, at one time, they were good. The next day, they were not. Right. But, typically, you try

to see if you can figure out what the trees looked like before you saw them had wrecked. Correct? And in this particular case, did you identify the property appraiser's website, which is a public record, correct, as a way to identify what the trees looked like before? Yes. The And thank you. In this particular screen, the way these work is they identify a period of time for the photographs. And I believe in this case, it's December 23 through January 24. Correct? Correct. Alright. Thank you. Citizen exhibit two for identification purposes. What is this? When was it taken?

So this is actually where when I was called out to the location, which was on 03/26/2024, where it's the tree that's on the south side of the building of the structure. So that's there's two different trees. So that is one on the south side.

Okay. Alright. City's exhibit three for identification purposes.

And this tree is actually on the Northwest corner of the house, which is on was taken on 03/26/2024.

Thank you. And you can tell the hack rack, which just means how the limbs have been excessively cut, for lack of better words.

Yeah. The the branches and everything was just severely cut back.

Thank you. So I just wanna go back to city's exhibit two. Are these the two trees on the property? Yes. They are. Thank you. City's exhibit one, I believe. City's exhibit four. So this is

just our reinspection prior to hearing. That is, you know, custom as as what we're supposed to do, which was 08/13/2025 was yesterday. I took a better picture of the tree that's on the south side of the property. Of city's exhibit five? The tree that's on the northwest corner of the house taken also yesterday on 08/13/2025.

And there has been a time difference because the city was attempting to try to work with the property owner?

It's been a process that's been going back and forth for quite some time.

Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence. As far as the photographs go?

Oh, you know, we can

I'll make a motion. Gotcha. I move that we admit the documents, the five photographs by the city into evidence for case number 250038. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Take two.

Question. When you say quite some time, how long or how's the interaction been with the owner?

So this was inspected and and seen on 03/26/2024.

So he's just not responding to

your request?

Well go ahead. Yeah. I'll let

the go ahead, Moana, the

attorney. So I wouldn't necessarily say that it's been a lack of response. I'll have the testifiers, which is the code officer and our senior landscaper possibly answer that question. But to surmise or proffer their testimony, it's more so the city's been going back and forth trying to work with the property owner, making sure we identify the rightful owners, etcetera. So that's when she says process. Process.

Thank you. So it's You're welcome. It's been a sixteen month period. So I don't know much much about trees, but were the trees sick I mean, I know trees and bushes could get like a fungus or get sick, so did they have to be hat racked because they were not healthy trees, or did they do it because they wanted more sunshine, or were they laying over the house argumentably? Like

So what what I'll do is we also we actually have our senior landscaping planner here. He can probably answer all those questions about what is, any questions about the specific ordinance. But I'm not sure if we can testify to what the owner's intent was for doing what they did to the trees.

Mister chairman, prior to the testimony, I just wanna be clear about what bringing it into compliance would be prior to listening to testimony. Thank you.

The tree got a grow. Okay.

So could you

Prior to listening to testimony, I would like to know exactly what coming into compliance means, miss Warren. Thank you.

Oh, yes.

So actually on this part, we are going to hand it over to our landscape our senior landscaper is here to give them guidance as far as giving also the suggestion from the city.

So if you can please give the suggestion.

Yeah. So as far as hat racking or when the tree is cut this severely or hat racking, it's it's pretty much damaged without removal. So in the ordinance that's called for a permit for removal. When you damage a tree to this severe on a single family lot, you have to provide mitigation per DBH. DBH is diameter at breast height.

It's basically four and a half feet above the ground where we measure the largest circumference of that tree's trunk. On each tree trunk at those times was between, I believe, like twelve and fifteen. Minimum size tree for a single family home is 12 foot. Coming in from the field, that's probably around two inches. So technically, it would probably take between, you know, six to seven trees to replace this one, and that's compliance. Yes. So to answer your question, this case has been going on for quite some time. It's been a difficult case. I personally haven't spoken to the owner, heard from the owner. My knowledge is he doesn't want to speak to me.

He doesn't want to deal with me. Oh, this

is definitely

about

the the trees.

No. This is about the trees.

No. No. I mean, as far as I think the question was

Were they disease ridden? Were they just cut by mistake?

My knowledge is they did not want the trees. They were caught in the act, and this is the state

that they're concerned.

So as far as the recommendation, is it correct that the city is seeking for thirty days to apply and obtain the proper permit needed, the landscaping permit, in accordance with the code section and follow any recommendations provided in accordance with the code of ordinance from you.

So yes.

And what is and I'm so sorry. What was your name and your position with the city?

My name is David Glover, and I'm the senior landscape planner.

But that's a current picture of the tree. Is it not?

It is.

It is. So the tree's growing back.

Okay. So let me ask you this.

Get a permit to take the tree out that's growing back?

Okay. Well, didn't say removal. We said proper permit. So the permit, as mister Glover said, could be mitigation. So the mitigation could be replanting a certain amount of trees, trying to prune this tree to come back to life. So that that would that's the answer to your question.

Alright. Can I expand on that? Yeah. So to build on Steven's question, how many specific number of trees does the new homeowner has to plan? Or are you asking to move it?

Like, what

is the specific

So so I'm not trying to take the take the answer away, but this is a specific the reason why I'm interjecting here is because it's a specific code question. Right? We have a specific code section which gives individuals options on how to come into compliance with the mitigation and that really depends on what they submit to the city as far as how they want to handle it right so there's different variations based on what the homeowner has to do so correct me if I'm wrong mister Glover.

So compliance here is applied to the permit?

Right. And consult with the senior landscaping to, you know, to figure out which process or direction that they want to go in to mitigate this issue.

To apply for a permit, get it approved, and that means

Correct. Correct.

Exactly. During discussion, when we as homeowners, because we're all property owners or residents here, do something without a permit, we're kind of city supervision and city codes. Sure. So you're quite simply asking that we make sure he applies for a permit. And then within whatever that permit is, he'll have to

Yes. And I'm so sorry. I believe mister Larue was saying something. I just wanna make sure we get everything on the record. I couldn't hear what he was saying.

He was simply asking whether or not we had called for a anyone in the audience representing the respondent.

Okay.

Is there anybody here Yes.

Perfect. Sorry.

Is there a suggestion for a fine amount?

I believe it was $50 a day there after?

Yes. $50 per day thereafter.

Thirty days?

Thirty days.

Your name and address,

please, Michael Etchko, 45 Northwest 8th Avenue. I represent number one, I wasn't present when these trees were cut. These were done by a landscaper. I have a paid receipt dated when he did it, so we'll make that clear. Exhibit number five right there, that tree was growing up against the house and causing damage to the house.

That's why it was trimmed back. The one that's next to the driveway caused major damage to my truck going in and out. The last property owner abandoned the house before I got it, and no maintenance was ever taken care of those trees. So my intention, as well as David says we've never spoke, but yet he's gonna answer my intention of what I was trying to do with those trees is clearly false. I don't know how I came to that conclusion if we never spoke, was that I authorized my landscaper with the sum of $300 to trim it to trim it back.

It's unfortunate that he overcut the trees, but I believe if the intention, as mister Glover said, that we were trying to deface and destroy the trees, I think he probably would have started at the bottom and you would have saw him probably fall over, not spend $300 to basically ruin a set of trees. Wouldn't really make any sense. Number two, this started as a 04/1616 warning notice. I don't know how this got escalated to a 04/1619 later on, but it did. I didn't this is a vacant property, so I'm not there every day.

Sometimes I'm there for days. Sometimes I'm out there for weeks. Sometimes I'm there for months. I saw this blowing in the yard. By the time I saw this blowing in the yard, I already had certified mail sent to me, inform me of the violation in a hearing, in which the violation didn't even match the initial door notice. So it changed. It would be like you got a speeding ticket for going x amount over, and then by the time they mailed it to you, they said, no. Sorry. I was reckless driving. So I don't know how it got escalated without and to my knowledge, mister Glover didn't even come to the property.

So, we'll just clarify that. Number two, if we are gonna take it as a four sixteen nineteen, according to that code in lieu of replacement of property, I may have the option of contracting with a certified arborist to provide medial pruning to the disfigured tree over a period of three years in an effort to repair the structural damage of the tree if the opinion of the arborist can be accomplished. A arborist report was submitted on July 22 that clearly indicates the trees will grow back perfectly healthy. We're not removing the trees. Our intent was never to destroy the trees.

I'm just trying to prevent damage from the roof, clearly, and damage from my truck in the driveway. I don't know if you have the I would assume you don't have the report on file because it probably would have been presented, or has it not?

Can you provide it to missus Warren and then we can introduce it into evidence?

This is the the arborist report. This is the arborist report?

That's what he's

saying it is. So before we even get to the the arborist report because that's a remedy if hat racking has been found. So I just wanna be clear. Are they are they not is he is it not in dispute that there was a violation of this section for a hat racking?

I don't believe so. And my thing is the the the the permit process. Right? You you still had to get a I know you had them cut, and they they went crazy and cut it too much, but you didn't have a permit to get that cut. And that's the problem,

I think, that that We need

a permit to trim trees?

No. You don't need a permit today. But to trim it to that extent.

I wasn't like I said, I wasn't aware, wasn't Without

a doubt.

I get it. But I think

Had I known Right. But I think

you have to you're probably responsible for what your people did. Right?

They I mean, at the end of

the day, I'm the homeowner. Yes. I'm fully responsible for anything that happens on

the property. I mean, there's a lot of lot of things going on here. Of course. I just think we need to approve for a permit, and then your arborist comes in or somebody comes in and says, let's get this fixed. Here's how here's the five ways you can get it fixed type of thing. But we have to apply for a permit, which is kind of all they're asking you to do. I don't think you can do anything going forward without a permit.

So the the this the all exhibits the you looked at of the trees showing right now, I've already had them professionally trimmed by an this is this is already ready for another trimming. I've already trimmed these trees, $1,400, on 01/29. So you could see the rate that they're growing back that, obviously, they're I

I saw that picture.

I was surprised that So they're ready for another trimming again.

But I believe the the city still says you need a permit, which so I believe we're out of compliance because we don't have a we we have to get a permit to go forward.

Right. And I think that's that's what I

was I'm

not That is that is correct. That's what that is what the city is saying and that's why I asked the question about what are we here. Right. Is he disputing the violation, or are we trying to get to the next step, which is compliance? Because there is a route, and the city has identified that and has received that arborist report as he stated, but there's there's a couple other things in that section of the code. It's not just submitting the arbor support. There's another step.

The fact of the matter is you didn't get a permit. And I think we were all surprised when we saw the what your your landscaper did. Right? I mean, all of us kinda jumped back we saw what that tree looked like from where it was. I we're sympath I'm sympathetic to where you're at. Yeah. But I also think you need to get a permit and work with the city to get it fixed so we can do what has to be done.

That's the the arborist report. Is anybody here a certified arborist? Just raise your hand. Anybody?

Oh, it's the fire pit.

To answer your question, may I may mister chairman, may I address the witness?

You may, Steve.

Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Yes. Sorry that that was blowing around in your yard. I own a property with a lot of trees, and I can empathize. However, the when I read what the city has here Yes. And what David tried to explain from his managerial position, there are some technical aspects to it, and they're all covered in the tree permit. Let me ask you a question. How much does a tree permit cost?

$25 per tree.

$25. That's true. So it's a it's a courtesy to cooperate with it. There

is no permit

There is no permit for trimming, but there is a permit for trimming.

The tree permit, when it's removed beyond a certain limit, it requires a permit. And that's kind of what it's explaining in the vernacular we have in front of us. In other words, he was trying to explain in his professional testimony. You asked who was a professional. He is our city's professional. And he was explaining that for so much trunk, there's so much canopy would be the

word. Yeah.

Yeah. And I heard it in his testimony, and I know how you feel. Like I said, I have trees. Yeah. And so I hear you. So and this was a while ago, But the city's asking that you get a permit and you cooperate with them and that. Everything moving forward, including the money you're spending is right in line with what our code is. I And don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask you to pay $25 within the next thirty days to obtain a permit and cooperate with the city. That's my end of my comment.

Mister chairman, can I ask that we consult with our attorney about the the specific circumstances? It does seem on the face of it unreasonable to ask that the property owner obtain a permit for something that he does not have any intention of doing, which is removing the tree. Right. But that is the remedy that the city is asking for. So Sure. Perhaps our attorney can advise us on whether or not that's an appropriate remedy and whether or not the

Well, it's not

the most court should consider a different remedy.

It's not the most artfully written code section. I'll be honest. I I don't know that the board has to address that. I I think if the board believes that a violation for hat racking has occurred, you can make that finding, and then you can give a compliance date. And then the respondent and the city can attempt to get compliance. And if the respondent feels that he's complied, the city feels that he hasn't, then that would come back the at the the lean hearing if it was appropriate. But I I don't know that you have to solve that today.

So can I make a suggestion? I'm sorry. Oh, sorry.

So just to clarify, your recommendation is that we find that we could find that there was hat racking that occurred, which would be a violation of this code, and give a date for compliance without specifying what that compliance looks like, and then leave that in the hands of the city and the property owner

to determine compliance. First, I I wanna be careful with language. I I don't recommend decisions to you because that is your judgment. Okay. Thank you. I think structurally when this board makes a finding, is generally always the same at this procedural location, which is you find whether or not the facts as you understand them constitute a violation of the code as you read it, and then you give a certain amount of time for compliance. In many cases, not just this particular case, but in many cases, compliance can be many different things. And so I don't know that this board necessarily I mean, even in this code section, it gives various ways that you can comply. I don't know that you have to mandate any particular one. You just have to give a reasonable amount of time to comply.

And as a suggestion, I I would say if you, you know, if you want more of a concise language for compliance, the code references mitigation in circumstances such as excessive the tree pruning. So if you want to say to properly mitigate in accordance with the code, that would encompass everything and there could be several different types of permits or routes that they would go. But again, that's something that they would have to, you know, let the city know how they want to proceed. And the city would agree to it, and the city they will have to present certain things such as this arbor support, etcetera, to come to that conclusion of compliance.

If I may. It is blatantly clear according to 04/1619, it gives you two options for HATRAC tree. Replace it with two more or provide an arborist report basically stating a path of healthy recovery. I spent $450 for a certified arborist to come out, evaluate these trees, give a detailed 18 page report to resolve the four sixteen nineteen, which like I said, is extremely clear. It's Excuse me, mister chairman.

Yes, Is what he's presenting been admitted to evidence to us and provided to

the board?

Report has not. Thank you. But

It has not. I was just trying to see if it was irrelevant to this case because that's not

Listen.

This this is

If it's even relevant to this particular case, we're we're here for a hat raking. That's more of

a We're here for a four six nineteen.

We're here sir. Please let me finish. We're here for a hat raking case under four six nineteen. Right? And the arbors report will come in as a compliance method not to prove or disprove whether hat raking occurred. So that's why I I asked that question prior to its submission. But it's up to the board to determine what evidence they want to admit or not admit.

I mean, understand the confusion just for the board's help in deliberation. The question before you today is whether a violation of the code occurred and to give a reasonable amount of time to correct. The question of whether it's been corrected or not seems to be judging by the way the the city and the responder going back and forth seems to be in some dispute. And that ultimately has to be resolved by this board, but it doesn't get resolved today.

Gotcha. I I would also like to offer the comment that I think, unfortunately, the owner, someone at the ability to hire someone, that the so called licensed and authorized and qualified, whatever you wanna use, per company that did the tree trimming, which was asked for by the owner, obviously did not understand what the city law says is allowed. And it's not the part to a certain extent, you can't we I think we can fully blame the owner if he's not if it's a partially owned property, he's there only part time, and he relies on the so called expertise of a so called qualified contractor to do some work that turns out to be wrong. And the other thing is, and I think we need to somehow bring in the arborist report because to me, it's a key item, is it is mentioned to a certain extent in the LDR section that remediation and by proper proper trimming, and as he said, he's had some professional professional trimming trimming done done on the basis of an arborist recommendation, and additional trimming is yet to be done. To me, that's a major remediation step that we can't ignore.

So let me clarify the arborist report and why it's even relevant to this section. If you look at four six, and I I didn't think we'd begin this far into the weeds, no pun intended. Section 4.619 f one b, it in lieu of replacement, the property owner may have the option of contracting with a certified arborist to provide remedial pruner to the disfigured tree over a period of three years in an effort to repair the structural damage to the tree if the opinion of the arborist this can be accomplished. A report, which is what we're referring to, from a certified arborist and a copy of the contract for remedial pruning must be to the submitted to the city keyword for consideration of this option this is not a board determination this is not an arborist determination this isn't a property owner determination this is a city determination so that's why before we even got into what this report says what does it mean what's the remediation how was it HAT racked I just don't think that that's even relevant to this code enforcement have a question

for our new board members and for because of our previous discussions. What happens if if we do find he did violate the code, if he does it again, then there are certain ramifications. Am I correct?

Yes. It could be treated as a repeat offender.

This is

right. So by acknowledging it did happen, it kinda prevents it from happening again. Thank you.

Miss Yes. Sherman, I have two questions.

Go ahead.

One for miss Warren. So you're saying that the arbis report is not something to be submitted after the fact. It has to be done prior to the the tree hacking when you can hack into

The hat racking comes into play after it it's done. Right? Like, now we know that it's done. There's a section for this. So this is a remedial type situation. So once it happens, then we could cite for a code. And there's different routes to compliance or different routes to mitigate that the homeowner can take. But that's just one of the routes. And I think this homeowner is saying it sounds like they wanna go that route, but it's not just submit the report, we're done. The city has to accept it. Right? And I think that's more of a compliance issue and not a an issue for this code board to determine. So that that's the point I was trying to make.

Thank you. I'll stop at at this stage. Right. I have another question. So I stated before, this is a sixteen month. It's been ongoing for some time. Have you been in ownership of the property since the very first violation?

Yes. This has been going back and forth between my attorney, the city attorney, Lee Gowan, and and, unfortunately, we've had many permits because we were told to replace the trees. We have I have records of permit applications to replace them because that was recommended by the city. Permits went unanswered. They kept saying my k.

My my my tree guy who was installing was not licensed from the city. He's came down here three times on record, provided license. So it really stalled out. The only reason the violation got closed because of a deed change. End of the year, about '24.

The only reason it it it basically got re it got closed because of a deed change, and then mister Glover decided to reopen the case. So that's basically where are today, but this has been going back and forth for quite some time to try to find a resolution. We've been actively working on this. We haven't had a lot of cooperation. My attorney hasn't had a lot of cooperation either. And, obviously, once it was closed from a deed change, obviously, there's nothing to pursue. Once it was open, we immediately responded with the certified arborist report stating that the trees will, in fact, grow back perfectly healthy within three years.

So, yeah, I I've just been sitting here and hearing everything. So just try to give you guys a brief, you know, summary of everything that's been going on. This happened over a year ago in March. The owner was cited for hack racking. At that time, he wanted to remove the trees. I have the documentations here from where he submitted to remove all four trees on the property. I denied it. I did not want him to remove the trees. At that time, I was telling him to try to preserve the trees and do this, and that was the dispute there. Since then, there was a deed change to where code enforcement closed the case.

No compliance was done, so that's why the case was open again. At this time now, we have received a arborist report saying now he wants to keep the trees because at first I was asking for so much mitigation. So it's just have been going

Can explain what can you explain mitigation? Cause I'm not sure if everyone understands what that

would be.

Like so like so I mitigation will be adding more trees than just having, reluctantly, the the two that he had racked. This has went, you know, as far as up to our city attorney. It has went to Warren. It has went to the case to where it went to magistrate with his representation at first. They made an agreement at that time with the city that they will come into compliance, they will listen to me, they will do whatever the code section said to come into compliance. And sooner or later after that, there was a deed change.

Oh, okay. So, basically, we we just wanted them to come in to compliance with the mediation to preserve the canopy. Correct? Correct. Okay. So as you can tell, I mean, this is this is a lot of information that I don't necessarily know is relevant to the case. So let me try to reel it back in a little bit. Just simply put, we're here for the hat racking. We're just asking that the board find them in violation for the hat racking and find that they have thirty days to apply for the proper mitigation with the city.

Miss Warren, I got a question.

Sure. Well, we wanna help

the homeowner come into compliance, and I think what we're struggling with is we don't know what that is because if you're asking him to put a permit for removal,

we need Nope. Nope. Let's stop there. We're not asking him to submit a permit for approval. We're asking him to have proper mitigation, which could be if he wanted to remove the tree, he can do a tree permit I mean, I'm not giving any advice. I just wanna start there. Okay. We're not asking or telling him which route of compliance to go. We're saying submit something to the city for how you want to handle, how you hat racked your tree on your property. And compliance can mean different things.

Compliance could mean apply for a tree removal permit, which is what they did where they would have to, you know, remove the trees. But based on our code, not mister Glover, right, it does say that if something is removed because it was hat racked, there has to be proper mitigation to the DH level. You know? That's not my expertise. I mean, mister Glover explained it.

Right? It would have to have certain tree mitigation, which means you have to replace these trees. Our goal is to replace our, you know, our preserve and replace our canopy in our city. Or if they wanted to keep the trees and properly prune them, they can go the arborist report route. So we're just saying within thirty days, submit the proper route that you want to go through to fix the hat racking

violation. Violation? I'm I'm gonna gonna make a statement and a motion. First of all, I don't feel that the property owner did this on purpose. He hired someone who wasn't experienced enough and has caused grief and aggravation in his life. And I think the easiest thing would have been, hey, let me go pull permits, rip the trees out, plant some new trees, I'm done. Took the time and effort go the route, Okay? People do deed switches all the time. It could be estate planning, whatever it may be. And it would have been cheaper for him just to go yank the trees out.

Which is what he applied for and which is what we made the recommendation for, but he elected not to.

I'm sympathetic for the homeowner, and I think now he has done his due diligence. The trees look terrible, but they actually grew back and they look fine. And you plan on keeping the trees. Correct? So the easiest thing in the world then would just to be able to file for a permit if he's gonna keep the trees and submit his arborist plan and hire a more reputable tree trimmer. Because I went through this on my HOA with my own gardener. Supposed to trim them, hack them. I had to buy new trees. The HOA fined me, the whole spiel. I didn't have to go in front of code because it was an HOA.

So I'd like to make a motion, mister chairman, with respect to case number 25Dash000038. I move for a finding of fact in the conclusion of law that there's good notice and violation, sorry guys, to the homeowner that exist on this property. My suggestion would be the offending party shall correct all the violations within thirty days. I don't think there should be any fines assessed on this, and he's to be bring it into compliance within those thirty days. He should immediately notify code enforcement and our landscaping department when the property is brought into compliance.

And if a violation is not brought into compliance, then the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board. In event of noncompliance, a lien can be assessed in a daily amount upon the property. I mean, the trees grew back.

Well, can we can we okay. Can we just comment on whether the trees grew back to the proper canopy or how it was supposed to look before they were cut?

Before we get there, there there has to there there's a motion on the floor, so we need to a second.

I I I wanted to clarify. May I I I appreciate your part.

He didn't get up on a ladder and cut the tree. So But we're punishing him.

No. My comment earlier was we wanna make sure I trust him as our neighbor, but if we find that it was coat racked in fact, then if it ever happens again

But he didn't do it.

And if it happens again

The motion is to find that he did do it, that he did hat

rack it.

That's what

I wanna do.

Thank you, Todd.

It would be a violation.