Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Go ahead and call the meeting to order. Afternoon, everyone. I hereby call to order the code enforcement meeting of October 9. 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 liens. The board is always interested in statements that will help us make a determination in each case, and we are interested in compliance rather than in levying fines. We will hear all cases in the order that they appear on the agenda beginning with new violations, fine assessment cases, or status updates, and concluding with the cases for which persons are seeking fine reductions. We will begin by having all people who are speaking before the board today sworn in. And if you could?

Your witness on a case or your property owner is going to talk, please stand up and hit sworn. Hang on one second.

Did you wanna do the roll call first so we have a quorum?

Yes. We can do the roll call first. Okay.

Please. Thank you. Wayne Pasek, absent. Steven Buchera?

Present.

Jimmy Canton? Present. Richard Burgess?

Present.

Todd Lehiru? Here. Jennifer Jones? Robert Cohen? Here. Alright. Thank you. We have a quorum. And then did you wanna approve the minutes?

Let's go ahead and get people sworn in, and then we'll do the Okay. There we go.

So we're gonna use

this one here. Alright? And we keep going. Great. Please raise your right hand. By authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Thank you.

Alright. Board members, we have minutes from May 8, June 12, July 10, and August 14 of this year. Can I get a motion we can improve them in block if anyone if everyone feels like they are satisfactory? If there's any questions or issues about the minutes, we can we can do them individually.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes as submitted.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Okay. Do we have changes to the agenda?

Yes, sir. Changes to the agenda. Postponed cases are as follows. Code 25000164 prior to the hearing. That's the only one that's postponed. And then I have compliance or closed cases are as follows. Case number 2025004555. Code 25000095. Code 25000116, code 25000125, code 25000133, code 25000137, code 250-0141. Excuse me.

000141. Code 25000143. Code 25000146. Code 25000147, code 25000148, code 25000149, code 25000152, code 25000156, Code 2 5000157. Code 25000166. Code 25000167. Code 25000168. Code 25000169. Code 25000175. Code 25000176.

Code 25000180. Code 250-0182. Code 25000185. Code 25000186. Code 25000187. And finally, 25000188.

Alright. Thank you. Motion to postpone the case number that

the proposal for the staff would like to postpone? I believe the last three were 064 in the beginning.

Yeah. Is that number 13 on the agenda? Is that the one?

Madam Clark. Yes.

Okay. Case number 13 code 2500164.

Can I get a motion to postpone that case to a future hearing?

Mister chairman, I'd like make a motion that we postpone case number 25000164 to a future meeting.

Second. Thank you. Any, discussion? All those in favor of postponing? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Miss Warren, do we have any, cases that we want to move up on the agenda because they have someone present today?

We have a lot of people. I don't believe that code enforcement staff checked individual in or nor was I notified of any urgencies. We can probably just go down the agenda. However if the board would like if they call a case and no one is present to move on to the next case to accommodate those present then the board can do that as well.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I believe we are ready to call our first case. First case 2025004957. Property owner, four hundred West Atlantic LLC. Registered agent, Lawrence Blair. Registered agent. Property address, 404 West Atlantic Avenue presented by code officer Delinda Witkowski.

Is there anyone present to speak on this particular case? Okay. Hearing none, will go ahead with the case.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, Board, members, magistrate, assistant city attorney, and distinguished guests. My name is Dolinda Witkowski, I'm a code enforcement officer for Clean and Safe. I'm here regarding an unapproved violation, signage violation located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue. On 05/24/2025, I inspected the property where I observed several temporary banners that had been hanging for an extended amount of time without the proper approvals, which is in violation of code section four point six point seven sub subsection f subsection one, which states that all signs need approvals by the city.

A general violation was issued on 05/24/2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified on 05/29/2025. Compliance date was requested for 08/14/2025. Because this case was a legacy case, which was the previous system that we had was a AS 400, another violation was issued through EPL and this violation was mailed first class and certified on 09/16/2025. Certified mail was not received.

Regular mail was not returned. Posted at City Hall and hand delivered on 09/17/2025. A reinspection prior to hearing was conducted on 09/30/2025. And as today, the violation continues to exist. I do have five photographs that I would like introduce into evidence. I have had some contact with the property or with the business owner and with a couple of the managers.

Thank you. I'm now showing you it has been previously marked as as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? I do. And when was this photograph taken, and what does it depict?

So this was when I saw the violation occurring, which was on 05/24/2025, which is one of the banners on the building. And that

is that the banner you're referring to at the top part of the building? Yes. Is there any instance where something like this would be approved in the city?

They are approved. Temporary banners are approved by our Muni Code. They are approved for a period of four weeks and only one banner per building.

Okay. So in this case, at at some point this became a violation? Correct. Okay. Thank you for the clarity. City's exhibit two for identification purposes?

There's a you'll see a couple more. So I think in total we had four hanging banners without approvals. And are

you referring to the banner that says grooves on the bottom and the one that says now open 9AM Yes, ma'am. In the photograph? Correct. That was also taken on May 24. Correct? Correct. And what about city's exhibit three?

Okay. So this is just reinspection that we do by by our standards that we requested for September September was the day that I did the reinspection prior to hearing. And the banner continues to be hung. And and you're referring to

the banner above the entry doors that takes grooves. Correct? Correct. Thank you. City's exhibit four for identification purposes?

Here's the the other banner. One kind of fell and is hanging on the corner of the the tent and the building, but the other one, I guess, removed it.

And is that the sign that you're referring to on the bottom Yes. Kind of middle of the photograph?

Correct. That's a temporary banner.

And that was taken on September 30? Correct. Thank you. I'm now showing what has been previously marked as exhibit five for identification purposes. What does this depict?

Okay. I know that it's hard to read, but there are several banners and stuff that had they were issued permits and approved, but they were technically for the building next door which is the smoke shop.

Okay. So let let's let's talk about that. So when you say do you mean the building? This particular building, the 400 West, it has different businesses there. Correct? Correct. It's just one parcel though. Alright. So I see here that there are different signs. For clarification none of those signs apply to the business groups located at the the 400 West Atlantic 404

correct Yeah. Actually, the restaurant is 404, but the parcel is actually under 400 West Atlantic. So this is actually for a different shop, not for for the restaurant.

So this particular image here depicts a lack of approved sign. Correct? Correct. Alright. At this time, the city would like to introduce the five exhibits into evidence.

Make a motion. So move.

Mister chairman, I move that we admit the five documents and pictures submitted by the court enforcement officer into evidence.

I second. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Documents are admitted into evidence.

Alright. What is your recommendation?

Because of the the lack of trying to come and and getting approvals for the permit, we as a city, we request five days for the removal of all the the banners, temporary banners, or 100 per day thereafter for noncompliance.

Thank you. Board members, any discussion?

I had a couple questions for

the officer. Yes, please. Go ahead.

I didn't understand. Had you approached the owner or management regarding this topic?

I have.

And you advised them that they a permit. And if they had a permit, it would only be good for four weeks?

Yes. They they're aware of that.

Thank you for letting us know that. Correct. Mister chairman, in light of

that

and I'm I'm not on the downtown boards or anything, but it doesn't seem fair to other businesses that are obeying the rules. So I think a $100 a day might be a little bit light in that it's a commercial violation. I wonder if any other board members

I have

a have a thought. Questions. Can see the pictures again?

Yes. Which exhibit would you like to see? Will we start

with the top?

Are a part of this restaurant groups. Correct? Yes. Okay.

So that's that's what's in question. Can we go to the picture of the awning?

The tent?

The tent.

Is that tent permitted?

They're currently They're currently trying, but as of now, it is not permitted.

So if another business had that tent up, it would be alright also? Was it bolted to the ground or the

picture of the awning? Building? So I may I just interject here?

Not in

If we could please stick to the current violation. We don't wanna say anything about anything else potentially going on with this or and also it's irrelevant what else is happening what is happening with the other businesses as well.

Thank you. Is there anyone here that owns a

property or no one showed up?

No. They didn't show up.

So the only thing we're questioning right now are the banners.

The banners.

Correct. As of

now Road have to question that town. It We're not gonna speculate on what you may or may not have. Curious. Okay. So

have you gotten a positive response back from either a tenant or a landlord about violations?

No. No positive response.

K. I thought that's what I just asked her.

Yeah. Yeah. No. No. Because there's a reason why I'm asking. Because it it's it's insult insult to injury for city staff because the manager of the facility is also on another board and it seems like he's got

a But we don't wanna go there.

That's not really relevant to

the We have to we have to really stay just on the one case

and on our board. Just just to to clean us up a little bit. The the this board should not consider anything other than the evidence presented to it. I would like

to add to my fellow board member. This violation, if we don't add a, I think, a little higher violation. I I think we're allowed to find up to a thousand dollars a day. Am I correct? That's correct. So something more appropriate perhaps I'm only suggesting perhaps a $100 per banner. So that would be $400. Yeah. Something because it's not fair to other people who own businesses. They can't put up a or any organization can't just put one up without a permit.

Right? Are you allowed to put one up temporarily while you have, like, permits in for permanent signs?

Yes. Absolutely. They can get approvals for a temporary ban, is a period of four weeks. One one per building.

And and they did not request a permit for temporary or for any permanent signage at this time? Correct. And you reinspected in the last forty eight hours?

No. We our procedure has been done differently now. Okay. So we do it if you we can do it up to 10 or something. It's it's done differently. So it was done on the thirtieth, but, yes, it's

still there. I mean, let let's just be clear. You patrol this area and

as I feel the

last time constantly up and down every day.

I mean, I drove past there today.

So I'm we

we don't base anything based on personal observations. Only evidence presented. Okay. Do we Just one one quick correction for everyone. The the officer recommended that you order the removal within a certain amount of time. Right. I would recommend that the board not order any type of compliance type because as as as in many cases, and this one is also ways to

get to compliance.

Ways to get to compliance, but give them a time frame to come into compliance.

The fines be assessed against the tenant or property owner?

They always go against the property owner. Okay.

Because that's where the lien goes.

Would you like to make a motion?

I will this time. Thank you. And thank you for your questions. I find them insightful. Mister chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to the case number 2025004957. I move for a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that there is good notice and that the violations of four banners being displayed without permit exist

on the property.

The offending party shall correct all violations within five days or pay a fine of $400 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 opposed upon the property.

Second? I second.

Do we have

a discussion? Do we

have a discussion on that?

Yes. I

do agree we need to get their attention, but I don't think five days is reasonable time for them to be able to respond.

So we can give them

a little bit more time. How much time?

I would like to have a discussion. You know, I wanna I

I mean, I'm inclined to disagree with that. They're an active practicing business. All they need is a pair of scissors in there

and they're fine. Five days to put them up.

Okay.

So That's a thing. I

I mean, normally, I would be in agreement with you.

If it

was a different kind of violation, I would be a 100% in agreement

with you. But in this case

I can take that. I agree

with I'd

like to

add to Jimmy that the officer's testimony was from he asked her and I asked her, have you consulted the manager about this? And they know. They're aware.

Right. Right. I would I would just add the standard for the board is that you have to give them a reasonable time to come into compliance. What that means in practical effect is that you have to there has to be enough time so that they can comply with your order, and that's the assessment that you should make.

So if my colleague thinks five days fine, I'll agree.

Any other discussion?

If the fine has to be heavier to move the needle, I would agree to a heavier fine. But, you know, $400 a day should get it cleared up. And that starting today doesn't go back from the original violation. Correct?

Yeah. The way the way that the order is drafted, the the fine would begin to accrue after the expiration of the five days that you've given them to comply.

And the property owner again was notified of all this. Correct?

All our letters certified in first class go to the property owner, which is on property appraisal and any business that has a registered agent.

Now just for point information, the tenant for Gruz is are they the property owner

or they're just a tenant? They are tenants. Okay.

But the property owner is the one who's gonna get the fund?

Correct. Thank you.

And any other discussion?

Can I just one second? One moment. Just wanna check with something with development services Okay. To make sure that they don't have anything else that might be in the works. One moment.

I just want to double check with development services that there are you know this wasn't a part of any other approval just to confirm. Okay. But she told me she wasn't aware anything. Thank you. Alright.

No other discussion. We'll call a question. So all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion passes. And next case.

Next case, 25025. Case number sorry. It's a typo in there. 2025005157. Property owner, Rosebud Ray Shops LLC. Registered agent, Centimeters Rack Inc. Property address, 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue presented by code officer Delinda Wachowski.

Thank you. And you're here for that property?

Yes. I am. I'm the property manager,

Abby Ray Shkinnett. And your address? My office address or their address? Your office address.

101 Southeast 4th Avenue in on Delray Beach 33483.

Thank you. Okay. Miss Warren? You may be safe.

Good afternoon. My name is Belinda Witkowski. I'm a code enforcement officer for Clean and Safe. I regulate the downtown, which are the restaurants and the businesses. I here regarding a clogged French drain on private property located at 245 Northeast 2nd Avenue.

On 06/03/2025, I inspected the property where I observed a French drain that had been clogged and flooding the parking lots with with rain, which is in violation of code section 56.2 subsection a subsection b, which states that that the property owners shall be responsible for the storm water drainage facilities located on private property where runoff will be principally be collected within the property. The owner shall clean and maintain the facility or channel as required to ensure efficient and proper operation of the facility. A general violation was issued on 06/07/2025. The violation was mailed first class and certified on 06/10/2025. Compliance date was required for 06/21/2025.

Because this also was a legacy case from our older system AS 400, another violation was sent out through EPL and the violation was sent first class and certified on 09/16/2025. Certified confirmation was not received, Regular mail was not returned. The it was posted at the property in City Hall on 09/17/2025. Reinspection was done on 10/03/2025, and as of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have four photographs that I would like you to introduce into evidence.

Okay. Again, I have had contact with Abby. We actually did go out there with public works. We discussed it and and to see what was the best option as to how to correct the the violation.

And then handle it.

And that was my next question. Did you consult with anyone for public works or

Yes. Someone from did.

Did they confirm that that there was an issue with the drainage?

They did. I do have an email here from him.

But so Just tell me what Yes.

We did. He he confirmed everything that what needed to be done and that there was an issue, and it needed to be resolved.

Okay. Thank you. I'm not showing yours has been previously marked as city's exhibit one for purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes. This was taken on 06/03/2025 at the

parking lot. So is this when you first note like, one of the times that you noticed this issue? Correct. Alright. And you're referring to the amount of water, standing water in the parking lot? Yes.

It was just a buildup. It wouldn't drain, so it stays several days over seventy two hours. It becomes an issue with them. Mosquitoes.

Alright. City's exhibit two for identification purposes?

This is just another photo. You can see the French drain there that was taken in the initial violation on 06/03/2025. Okay.

And could you describe the what's in the photograph? Describe it? Yeah.

So you you can see there the the the drain, the the French drain, and it just has, like, about three inches of of water there.

Perfect. Thank you. City's exhibit three for identification purposes?

K. This was our reinspection photo taken on 10/03/2025. Yeah. It's I had to I mean, it it rained, but it does accumulate a lot of water there. Alright. So you you just described that there's lots of

water near the drain. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

And this, again, is just a close-up that was taken on reinspection prior to hearing, which was on 10/03/2025. Alright.

And then could you describe what's in the photograph, please? I'm sorry? Could you describe what's in the photograph?

So it's the the the French drain, just a closer look of it, covered with water with two, three inches of water.

Alright. Thank you.

Alright. So

At this time, the city would like to introduce the four photographs into evidence.

I move that we admit the documents, the four pictures submitted by the code enforcement officer into evidence. Second?

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you.

I did receive proposal from Abby today actually when I got to work. I printed it out and it looks like they are working on it. I should

Tomorrow morning they're doing it.

Okay.

They're gonna they're gonna jet the drain and vac everything tomorrow morning.

And if you can clarify what the what the compliance date was.

So the compliance date was June it was of June the June 21.

Alright. Thank you. And

what does the city looking for in this case?

Would you wanna hear from Yeah.

I guess, do have opportunity to question the witness initially and provide any rebuttal or testimony as well?

At this point, I mean, I got a contract with Shenandoah and because we've been working on it for the last thirty days. I did have one of my contractors come out, but it was it failed. So now I've hired Shenandoah, and they're coming out tomorrow morning to jet and back the the line. I just ask for a little bit of leniency so I can at least get this done in the next week.

Okay. Thank you.

Question from either this is the inlet to a supposed French drain, which is a funny word because it doesn't really mean anything in the engineering business, but that that's agreed to. But my question is, what is the discharge outlet situation? Where did to what does this French drain discharge? Who and who owns the

canal at the outlet end? I don't know the question.

Not a discharge on the same property. So it's an older construction and older parking lot. So technically, there should have been, but there isn't.

Are you is your contractor going to somehow connect your French drain to some receiver that can accept that much water?

At this point, they're just cleaning it out and basically jetting it and backing out any of the dirt because I guess the dirt dirt is quite impacted and into the drain.

It doesn't answer the question. Where does the water want to go? Is it possible that there's a a physic blasting it out with a hose or something isn't the same as putting in a pipe that's really maybe needed? I mean, you need to really have an engineer tell you what to do. Otherwise, you may not be getting anywhere. Well, can I just question is, what what is your contractor proposing to do?

I'm gonna cut you off here because I I don't think that that's the results are necessarily the the response to that question necessarily answer what we need to know in order to determine whether a violation exists. You're looking at whether or for a proposed solution I'd like to hear

the city's proposal first before we know how much what's what are the time constraints? What is your

Mister Cohen, that's why they hired a professional, but our the city's suggestion is fourteen days to clean that x filter trench or $100 per day thereafter for non compliance.

So fourteen days to come into compliance. Thank you.

Question then is, does your contractor told you that that's enough time to do the work that they anticipate encountering?

As of right now, it's we're gonna jet and clean. We're gonna see what basically, what it looks like. And we're in hopes that there's no intrusion from roots or anything like that. But as of right now, the first step is to jet and vacuum vacuum the back the French drain.

Alright. If at the result of that test show there's still a problem

We gotta continue on and do something.

Yes. Absolutely. Would you

then ask for some extension of time now that the problem is

Yeah. And then we come back in front of you guys and ask for more time with some plans from Shenandoah because they are a contractor that does this. Alright.

Other other questions for the witnesses?

What was the city's position on the drainage issue with public works?

What what what do you mean as far as

I think that the public works confirmed that there's no connection to the city Yep. Drain system, which is why they're totally responsible for

buildings in the area that have had similar issues with water and sewage with when stuff was constructed. Some of the older buildings, they didn't tie in.

Right.

And that that parking lot, I remember going to a Chinese restaurant with Christina's fifteen years ago when it rained, had a drainage issue. So I think it's, you know, they're trying to follow due process and get it cleaned out at least, but I would suggest, like, seriously speaking with Public Works to see where the problem lies because it's it's been a drainage issue in that area for a long, long time. You know, I've seen that just driving by myself.

And I do have a question to expand on that. That was my question. Was the drainage issue there before these tenants got there? Because if they do everything possible to fix it, then what? Definitely. What if they clean it out?

And they're responsible for the condition of the property as the property owner.

Property owner has to maintain it.

Yeah. Definitely. Okay.

I think it might fall on the city side once they clean it out.

It's property. It's private owned.

Yeah. I've tried to get the city out there several times, and every time they told me it's privately owned.

Yeah. It's not connected to the city, so it's not

a Okay.

City drainage issue. I I mean, the the conversation's coming in in a you know, a a solving direction, which probably is is not great, but it is okay for you to consider what the respondent needs to do to come into compliance and to give them the appropriate time to do so. That is certainly within your your Right. Purview.

Just one other I don't know. I'm not familiar with this part of the city. Does this part of the city is this served by Lake Worth Drainage District?

I don't think so. No. South know how that I don't

think Southwest Florida Water Management District? Are they are they have any responsibility for a discharge location in this for the in this part of the city?

I don't think so.

No. No. I don't think so.

So does the city maintain something downstream of where this property transitions to somebody else's property that hasn't helped designed to work?

Or Wherever it is city property, they the city will maintain it. If it is private property, they have to the property owner has to maintain it.

I understand. But eventually, the water is going to pass the property line of this owner's property.

That is beyond my knowledge. Understand.

So who's responsible for creating the water from the edge of the from the property line of this owner someplace else?

Mister mister

The city May

I I?

The owner can't be responsible for anything past their property No,

I was going to say, I was going to say at this point the city is asking for fourteen days for them to come into compliance and a fine thereafter. It sounds like the board is considering what time is reasonable. I think the compliance, know, the respondent has already stated that she's been in contact with the city, has already hired a professional so they're already taking measures to come into compliance. So I think that any conversation beyond that I think we might be getting a little out of sight of the scope of the hearing.

Mr. Chairman. Can I make a motion

based on Ms? Warren's testimony and we do have she is trying. We'll take the city's recommendation that we'll give them fourteen days to come into compliance.

And why don't you give the full motion, I'm sorry.

Now how much penalty for the

city says

after fourteen days?

Fourteen days. $100 fine is what the city was asking.

Mister chairman, I'd

like to

make a motion with respect to case number 005157. I move for a finding of a fact and conclusion of law that there's good notice and that the violation of the drainage exists on the property. The offending property shall correct all violations within fourteen days or pay a fine of up to a $100 per day for each day thereafter for noncompliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the court enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance. If the violation is not brought into compliance, the court enforcement officer shall report back to the board. In any event of noncompliance, a lien of the daily amount shall be opposed on the property.

I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to correct you on that. You said city property.

I'm sorry. Is it Yeah.

Private property. So you're gonna have to reread that.

So reread it again? Yes.

I think we can amend amend your wording to say private.

Yes. We can make Correction.

Private property.

Thank you.

Second. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Abby.

Okay. Next case.

Next case, code 25000056. Property owner, Selena Development LLC. Registered agent, CT Corp system. Property address, 32 Salina Avenue presented by court officer James Easley.

And do we have anybody present for this case? Anybody property owner or somebody wishing to speak in this particular case?

Okay. Go ahead. Good afternoon, code board.

My name is code enforcement officer James Easley, clean and safe unit. I'm here regarding case number 25Dash000056, a maintenance of building required violation

property

the property

owner owner needed needed to to obtain obtain all required permits to repair or replace the glass pane to the front entry door, repair or replace the missing or damaged roof tiles, and repair or replace the broken or rusted drip edge to bring this property into compliance. The observed condition of the property constitutes a violation of code section seven point eight point three, maintenance of buildings, which states that all buildings or structures both existing and new in all parts thereof, including all materials and fixtures, shall be maintained in a safe, secure, and sanitary condition. Therefore, on 07/10/2025, this case was established. Notice of violation and notice of hearing was mailed by first class and certified mail on 07/28/2025. The green card was returned on 08/08/2025.

The notice was also posted at the property on 07/28/2025. The compliance date was required by 08/15/2025. On September 11 and 09/12/2025, I reinspected the property and observed that the property was still not in compliance. Therefore, on October 1, I conducted a reinspection and observed that the violations still exist. I have 10 photographs taken of the property in question. I have had contact with the property representative who has kept the city abreast of their plan and progress term towards compliance. To this day the property remains in a state of non compliance.

Thank you. I'm not sure if it has been previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. Can you tell us, when the photograph was taken and what is it describes?

Yeah. This is this photo was taken on 06/09/2025, and it depicts the the front, view of the property.

Okay. What are the violations described in the photograph?

Yeah. So when you look at the front from this angle, right at the bottom is one of the panes that is completely missing. So a person can go in and out, animals can go in and out. Say it was completely open at bottom pane that you see on the front door at 32 Salina.

Thank you. City's exhibit two?

That's a close-up photo showing that the bottom pane is completely missing at the bottom.

And was on July 9 and also exhibit three is on July 9?

Yes. This photo was taken on 07/09/2025. You can see the condition of the drip edge and the condition of the roof.

Thank you. City City's exhibit four.

You see a reinspection was completed on September 20 09/05/2025. You can see they put a piece of plastic at the bottom, but the property still remains in a state of noncompliance.

City's exhibit five?

Again, on 09/05/2025, you can see the condition of the roof and the drip edge.

Thank you. City's exhibit six.

Again just another angle of the condition of the roof and the drip edge.

City's exhibit seven.

Again, this is another portion of of the property. You can see the, rusted, drip edge of this property.

And there's also it looks like some disrepair or or damage to the kinda looks cream or pink Yes. Area?

Yes. And this is all taken on 09/05/2025.

Thank you. City's exhibit eight.

Again, this is another accurate depiction of what I observed in the field when I did my reinspection on 10/01/2025, you can still see the condition of the roof and the condition of the rusted drip edge.

The city's exhibit nine?

Another angle taken on October 1. You see that this property still is a state of noncompliance.

And and what's depicted in here is kind of what you described earlier?

Yes. Again, the the condition of the roof and the drip edge, the maintenance of the building.

Alright. And this is a a different site on city's exhibit 10. What is this depict?

Again, from another angle, another side of the property, based on my reinspection on 10/01/2025, you can see the condition of the property, is in violation, direct violation of our code section as it deals with maintenance of building.

Alright. And it looks like some of the paneling is just completely missing on top near the roof?

Yes.

Alright. At this time, the table would like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence.

Can I get a motion?

Mister chairman, I move we accept the 10 photographs resided presented by the city as evidence of the

condition of the property. Second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And does the city have any other comments or recommendation?

Yeah the city's recommendation is that the property owner be given thirty days to bring the property into compliance or face a fine of $100 per day thereof.

Thank you. Question.

What is the use of the property currently?

I mean, I obviously, I think a Is

it a commercial property or a residential property? It's hard to tell from these photos which one it is.

Yeah. It's it's it's the property is owned by a corporation. I'm not sure of their usage of the property.

Is the zoning residential or commercial?

This this is a zone

One moment we have our development services director here.

I have a question in the meantime. Okay.

Go ahead.

Sorry if I missed it. Have you been in contact with the owners?

The property representative.

So not the owner

of the property appraiser. It goes to the owner of the property and the registered agent.

And they've responded to that in some way?

They they have reached out and, tried to keep the city abreast on their, their desire to bring the property into compliance. But as of today, the property is still in a state of noncompliance.

That the main door into the

house. House? Yeah. Yeah. So So again, again, I I can I can only only, take photos from what can be observed from the street? So I have

looks like the windows are boarded up. Is that accurate?

Yes. Some of the some of the windows in

the front So so it's hard to even assess that. Right.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any other discussion?

Well, let's get this other question answered. I think we may have some information.

Good afternoon. Could you please state your name for the record? Amy Alvarez. And miss Alvarez, what is your position with the city? Assistant development services director. And are you familiar with the the area of 32 Salina Avenue in Delray Beach, Florida? Yes. And I believe there was a question from the board as to what is the zoning district. So the zoning district is our m. I just I wanna be sure you're asking about the zoning district,

not specific to that property, right. Okay.

Yep. It's RM, which is multi family medium density.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Other discussion?

I would like to get you guys feedback. You know, the city worker is working extremely hard. It's owned by a corporation. They only let a representative speak to them. So they are aware of the situation. If they really wanted to come in compliance, someone who make decisions would have been in contact with him. What do guys think about that?

I agree. I concur.

It almost seems to me like somebody owns this and they're not sure they're ever gonna rent it, they're gonna do any with it, and they're not in there's no incentive on their part if they're not gonna make money from it. By renting you know, why bother? Well, that's not the the way the the law is set. You wanna it doesn't matter to us whether it's in use or not. It should look nice and be safe.

That's correct.

I agree. I think fourteen days and, like, you know, we we should get their attention and because it's to bring them into compliance.

Correct? I didn't understand what the city was asking

for, Jimmy. City recommended thirty days and then a $100 a day.

So this is a maintenance of buildings Yep. Violation. Depend it depends on what they wanna do to bring this into compliance certain things may require permits some things may not require permits so we're just asking for fourteen days for them to properly maintain

or thirty what I'm

sorry I'm so sorry no no permits that It was just however they want to bring the property in compliance. I heard fourteen days, my apologies. The city is recommending thirty days or a $100 a day per day based on the amount of what we've observed. What will be reasonable in this situation.

Hey, may I comment? Jimmy? It's I I think you're saying we want to make that a little more urgent with the fourteen days, you know, more do it now, but I think it's not feasible to get all the permits and plans in place. But I think because it's a obviously a commercial property, by that I mean, they're not it's not a primary residence being rented for profit. Correct. So I would say since it's a commercial venture and it looks like the compliance date on this report was August. August what?

Yeah. The the property was cited on July 9. The original compliance date was 08/15/2025.

So August 15 was the compliance date. This is later in October. So I don't think the time is gonna motivate them. I think perhaps a more appropriate finage when we that's my thought. Thank you.

If I might just two things for you to think about. One is as tempting it is to hold them accountable for not meeting the first deadline, you are still required to give them a sufficient amount of time from your order to the compliance date so that they can comply. It is not appropriate for you to give them insufficient time so as to force them into noncompliance because it is not doable. So you always have to consider what is a reasonable amount of time and you are certainly allowed to ask the officer in the city about what is a fair amount of time for them to go there and then reach your own judgment how to get there. But at the end of the day, you still have to no matter what happened prior, you still have to give them enough time to comply with your order so that it is not a default by default.

I think we covered that together. Thank you, Jimmy. Yeah. I mean, my

think a get a motion connected?

Just just looking at the photographs and the roof only, a permit is gonna be required because this you know, the the rules are are very very strict and it's in terrible shape.

So, you know, I think

thirty days

All all we're doing is giving you time come compliance. The city

For the record, this this board this board should never ever ever make a recommendation about how they should come into compliance because then you are responsible for it. So I I don't think it was your intention to give them a recommendation.

I was trying to say the thirty days is appropriate because of the fact of

life of how long it takes to

Okay. I agree. Project like this.

I just I wanna sure you you're telling us we wanna make sure we don't tell them how to come in compliance. That is correct. Because that's just not our That is not your role.

Prerogative. I mean I mean sometimes because we get lost in the weeds sometimes, but it's always important to remember is that there's two functions functions here, right? One is to listen to the facts and identify whether you believe the facts demonstrate a violation of the code as it is written and second, to give them a compliance date that is sufficient for them to reasonably comply with. That's that's all. That's it. Okay. Question.

So the city does feel thirty days is sufficient time?

Yes. The city feels that thirty days is sufficient time, to apply and obtain an approved permit and to make steps towards compliance.

Board members. Whoever

draws this up, mister chairman, I think that that that should not be a 100. I I would recommend two fifty. Okay. I agree.

Yep. 02:50? Okay. Chairman, I would like to make a motion with respect to case number 00056. I move for finding a fact and conclusion of law that there

is

good notice and violation for the building maintenance exists on the property. The offending party should correct all violations within thirty days or pay a fine of up to $2.50 a day per day for each day thereafter for non compliance. The respondent shall immediately notify the code enforcement officer when the property is brought into compliance and if the violation is not brought into compliance the code enforcement officer shall report back to the board and in event of non compliance a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Before we move on to the next case, just a reminder to the audience and to the board members that cell phones should be silenced. Board members were here to focus on the details of the case, so I know sometimes emergencies come up and and we're volunteers here, but we are here to to do our jobs on behalf of the city. So thank you. Next case.

Alright. Next case. Case number four on the agenda, code 25000058. Property owner, Jojo Realty LLC. Registered agent, Frank Canigla. Property address 501 East Atlantic Avenue presented by code officer Delinda Wieczkowski.

And is there anybody in the audience that is here to speak on this case? Alright. Go

ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Delina Witkowski. I'm a code enforcement officer for Cleaning Safe. I'm here regarding a parking lot maintenance violation located at 501 East Atlantic Avenue.

On 07/10/2025, as I was driving along, I I inspected this property and I observed the parking lot required maintenance such as patching up holes, repairing concrete lids to water meters, ceiling and restriping of the parking lot. This is in direct violation of our code section four point six point nine subsection d subsection 10 subsection B which states that it is the owner's responsibility or operator of the specific use to ensure that the parking lots are kept in good operating conditions such as maintaining, the other the the the 09/16/2025. Certified mail was received on 09/29/2025. Regular mail was not returned, posted at City Hall and hand delivered on 09/17/2025. A reinspection prior to hearing was conducted on 09/30/2025.

As of today, the violation continues to exist. I do have eight photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence.

I believe no one is here for the case.

You believe someone is here for this case?

No. It's not. I think you called out to see if anyone was here for the case?

Yeah. I did.

Okay. I did.

Yeah. Just wanted to make sure I thought I thought some movement behind Alright. Thank you. Announced hearing has been previously marked as city's exhibit one for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken and what does it depict?

This is 07/10/2025. It's just one of the photos of of the parking lot. You can see that the the handicapped space is very faint and the parking lot itself, you'll see in other pictures that the striping you cannot see.

And this is the fair and accurate depiction of the violation?

Yes, it

is. Thank you. City's exhibit two for identification I

believe this is a water meter and it's cracked and broken and obtaining water.

And that was on July 10 as well? Yes.

I'm sorry. Yes. 07/10/2025.

Alright. City's Exhibit 3. This is just

a few holes that potholes that need to be fixed, and this was taken on 07/10/2025.

And and you say a few few potholes. It looks like a darker area.

It's throughout the parking lot. There's a few potholes that need to be corrected.

Alright. Thank you. City's Exhibit 4.

And this is another water meter that's cracked and broken that needs to be repaired.

And that was on July 10? Yes. City's exhibit five. Okay. And this

is a reinspection photo. I apologize. There was a lot of people there, so it was hard to take a good picture of the parking lot of 09/30/2025, but obviously, you can tell that nothing has been done.

So when you say nothing has been done, it looks like the parking lot still needs to be restriped?

Correct. It needs to be resealed, restriped, and fixed. All the potholes and all the water meters.

And then while you were there, did you get a good look at the entire parking lot? Not just this photograph. Because I know you said something about not being able to take a great photo, but you were there and had the opportunity to observe the parking lot. Yes. I was. Thank you. Cities exhibit six?

I think that's a I kinda peeked underneath the car. I think by our ordinance, I can do that. I can peek under the car. So I took a picture of that. There's a pothole there.

And that was on September 30? Yes. September 30. City's exhibit seven?

This is September 30. There was also another reinspection photo. You can obviously tell that they haven't resealed it or re striped it. And because they need a permit for this is because when you reseal, you can't see the lines, and so have to the city has specifications as far the striping and how it's done and so that is why a permit is required.

And speaking of permit, I'm now showing you as previously marked as CCC, exhibit eight, what does this depict?

This is just one of the, from the EPL, from our system showing that they applied but it's not yet completed in the system.

So they have applied for a permit?

So they applied but it's not approved yet nor has the work been done. And in the nor ordinate in the narrative, I requested an approved permit and work be complete within thirty days.

Okay. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the eight photographs and screenshots into evidence.

Can I get a motion to that effect?

Make a motion. With regards to case number 25Dash00058, I move we omit the documents and pictures, number eight eight of them, by the city into evidence as the city has the exhibits eight of them.

Thank you. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.

Okay. The city recommends that with thirty days to obtain an approved permit and to also complete the work, which would be re striping, resealing, fixing potholes, fixing the broken water meters and so forth within thirty days or $100 per day thereafter for non compliance.

Alright. Anything further?

Nothing further from the city.

Alright. Board members, any questions for the witness?

Is the use of this parking lot dedicated to a building where all the are there are other cars are sewn in the parking lot, do we are you using the building adjacent to the parking lot

or what are looking this parking lot is for Muscle Beach restaurant and for Bernice.

Is it just that strip or the entire parking lot that you have to

It's not that big but it's the entire parking lot.

Okay. That is the parking lot? Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

I have

a question.

Yeah.

So you're stating, officer, that they have applied for a permit to fix the potholes, the water meters, the handicap spots, and anything else that you've noticed that's out of line in the photographs? Correct. They've applied for that?

They've applied, but the the permit, I believe, is still in review. So it has not been approved.

I have empathy when a permit is in review. So and you're saying it should come out of review within how many days?

They need to obtain it before they do the work.

How long as a representative of the city, how long would you say it's gonna take for them to come out of a permit review?

Well, technically, this I understand your question, but this has been this was postponed from the last code board, so they've had plenty of time to do it.

I I appreciate that that they didn't apply timely. And I apologize if I'm being rude rude anyway, but if based on prior conversation with our counsel, we wanna make sure we offer the proper amount of time.

If they respond back and forth and and they have a good permit approvals that they gave all their paperwork and everything was correct, thirty days should be enough.

Thank you. Question?

I'm so sorry. When she said it's correct I just wanted to because I understand your question. Understand I'm being your too rude about it. No, no, no, absolutely not. I think your question was, is this a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance? Before she finished, we do have our chief building executive here who will be, you know, to represent permits. I mean, I hate to put him on the spot, that is a good question, you know? And it appears that they applied on 09/23.

Could you give your name for the record please?

Steve Tobias for the building.

So mister Tobias, assuming that we kind of get I hate for lack of better words a clean or good submittal and they respond to comments appropriately How long does it typically take for a person to obtain a permit for resealing and restriving of a parking lot?

Don't know that's on my department.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I'm going to say that it's usually reviewed within ten days.

So with okay. Usually. Thank you.

Thank you. I do have a question.

Go ahead, Jake.

Is there anything that the tenant is required to do right now or are we just solely waiting on the city to review the information to release the permit?

Do you are you do you know the answer to that question, miss Witowski?

Well, it just it's it's in review. So it depends on it could be on the city side, side it could be on their side so it could be on hold because they're not responding to responses.

Can you give us a moment to just look up the permit status? We can look that up in our system.

Thank you for doing that. I appreciate thank you.

One question about this. Permit data is up here. A 150 square feet. It's a funny number to me for a project as described in the in the photographs.

Give us one second.

Yeah. Well, for for discussion, mister chairman, the reason why I ask is because if the tenant has nothing to do and they're waiting for the city to respond Right. And they take another thirty days, how can they come in compliance? So that's the reason why I'm asking is who's

Mister chairman, I don't think they should do anything that's not permitted. It could be wrong. Correct. Right. You spend money and

it's wrong. They're waiting to hear

back on you know,

that's my question. Who are we waiting on? Now if they're not responding to comments, then that's different.

I think we're being very fair in asking

the question. So

30 feet wide by 50 feet long is a 150 square feet. That's that's, I think, about the size of that lot.

Yeah. That's what I

was looks bigger because it's a wide angle lens there, but I think if you actually went and looked at that lot, you'd find it's not

as big as some of those pictures. Just

a reminder, we're still in session, so anything you say should be saved into the microphone and is open to public record. No

math questions, please.

I just consulted with our staff members. It's it's only been with the city for two days.

Okay. Okay. So thirty days

you recommend thirty days is sufficient amount of time?

To to receive an approved permit? Yes, ma'am. Yes.

Well, I mean, we're we're looking for compliance here, but yes. So

Correct. But I think he asked me about the permit process. But yes. To to achieve compliance, yes.

Motion?

Mister chairman, I'd like to make a motion with respect to case number 58. 25 Thank you. 000058. Mhmm. I move for finding a fact and a conclusion of law that there is good notice in the violations that are shown in the photographs, including the water meter damage, the handicapped parking painting, and the overall condition of the parking lot still exist on that property.

The offending property shall correct all the violations by obtaining permits within thirty days or pay a fine of a $100 per day 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 not in compliance, a lien for the daily amount shall be imposed on the property.

Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Alright. Next case.

Next next case. Case number five on the agenda code 25Dash000060. Property owner, Pat's Management Inc. Registered agent Patel Rashishwar. Property address, 337 Northeast 2nd Ave, presented by code officer Delinda Wachowski.

And is anyone present in the audience for this particular case? Okay. Come on up to this microphone over here. And when you get here, just give us your name and address for the record, please.

Business address or my home address? Either way. Okay. Rajeshwar N Patel, president owner of Pets Management Inc. 337 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida since 1987. Same place.

Thank you. Okay. Miss Warren?

You may proceed. Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement officer Delinda Witkowski. I am here regarding a parking lot maintenance violation located at 337 NE 2nd Avenue. On 07/12/2025, I inspected the property where I observed parking lot that required maintenance such as patching up holes, ceiling, and restriping the parking spaces plus handicapped space that must be executed in accordance to the ordinance.

This is in direct violation of code section 4.6.9 subsection D, subsection 10, subsection B, which states that it is the responsibility of the owner or operator of the specific use to ensure that the parking facilities are kept in good condition. Therefore, a notice of violation was issued via first class and certified mail on 09/15/2025. The certified mail was not received, The regular mail was not returned. Posted at the property and at City Hall on the on 09/17/2025. A re inspection prior to hearing was conducted on 09/30/2025.

As of today, the the violation continues to exist. I do have five photographs that I would like to introduce into evidence on this case.

Thank you. I'm not sure it's been previously marked as a disease exhibit one for identification purposes. When was this photograph taken,

and could you describe the violation? This was taken on 07/12/2025. The parking lot has actually, you cannot see the striping hardly whatsoever. So there's no lines? No. No lines for the handicap and for the the regular parking.

Okay. Thank you. City's exhibit two. Okay.

So here's handicap. As you can tell, you can't I'm I'm Very faint, if any. Yeah. Very faint, but hardly nothing at all. So it just needs to be resealed and restriped.

This is exhibit three.

This is the reinspection prior to hearing that continues to be noncompliance, which was taken on 09/30/2025 where nothing has been done. The parking lot continues to be unstriped and and un unsealed. Thank you. City's exhibit four? So there you can tell there's a few little there's a couple little potholes, but nothing severe. But the striping is still missing? The striping is necessary, yes.

Thank you. Cities exhibit five? Okay. So as you

can tell here, he has, on his behalf, he has pulled a permit and I think it's been like that for a little while, but it's been in review so I'm not sure if it's on behalf of his comments that he has not commented back or for the city. But he needs approved, on the narrative it says that he needs to apply and obtain approved permit and do the work as well.

So as of today, there's no approved permit and there is no approved permit prior to the compliance date. Correct? Correct. Thank you. Okay.

Can we get a motion to accept these exhibits

I make a motion, mister chairman, that we accept the exhibits one through five as presented by the city.

Second. Second. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Those documents have been accepted as exhibits one through five.

I believe that

Yes. You have the opportunity now to quest question the witness about what she the she's provided, the statement she's provided, or about any of the evidence she's presented, and provide any rebuttal testimony.

Yes. Because lot of good thing is missing out of this. So here is the deal. I'm there since 1988. First first time coming here. First time. Okay. So first thing is I was away. Twentieth July, I came back. There was a notice from the officer there.

Mhmm.

I acted on straight away. I came here to see the no. She put it with that that you can't do it. Anything, you have to go to city hall to get a permit. Mhmm. I took out permitting, everything over six years ago, but I did a proper parking lot. I did it with the filling and everything, ceiling, striping, but the business is there since '72. I own it from '87. When I came to the city hall here with the say, hey. This is approved permit. What is six years ago? K. Am I allowed to do it straight away? Ceiling and that. I I take a responsibility.

But the way it's done that I've ignored it for two and a half months. I've been so many time. Believe me. So this I'm saying, is there a recommend that you are recommending what the fines and everything? Is there any way you recommend, Siri, what to do? So when I came, they could not answer me one. They did not know whether I need first time, whether I need a permit from that drawing, which I already had it. I can go ahead and seal it, do it a permit, permit, not myself, from the company. The person who did it the company who did it, Old County, legit company, six years ago. So Straight away, the person at the counter did not know the answer.

She went to ask somebody. Second person did not answer, and then they came and said, no. You need a permit. Now I'm looking to get a permit. Mhmm. So, suddenly listen to me. Six years ago, I paid $4,000, including refilling. Now everybody wants 4 and $5,000 as long as the permit name comes in. Okay? So I said, I have to get a extra quote. I end up with getting three quote. They were all around $3,000. So I selected the one. I paid them $2,900. I got everything. Another $900 for permitting, they applied. Mhmm. While I was away two weeks, as soon as I came, I came back again. The permit is not issue.

So can I

Permit is there?

I'm so sorry. Just for clarification, we just noticed the error. This is not the permit correct screen, so we ask that you withdraw this exhibit from evidence exhibit 5 for clarification. No permit has been approved. It's a different this is the incorrect permit number. So if you see the permit number with the 4 H address?

Wrong address.

This is the wrong

address. Wrong slide for the wrong that's for the prior case.

That's what I'm saying. That's for the prior case. Right?

Mister chairman, at this time, I'd like to amend my previous motion to remove exhibit five and only accept exhibits one through four, which were photographs that were admitted by the city into evidence. Second.

Thank you.

And if I just if I can just oh, I'm so sorry.

Yeah. All in favor of amending the list of exhibits. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed? Okay. So exhibits one through four accepted. Exhibit five is ignored.

Yes. I just wanna get some quick testimony if if you may or if you want to let him finish his portion of his case and then we can come back on rebuttal.

Can I think they have some more information that's relevant to the standing of your permit? So can we continue? And then we'll come back to you, and you can have a chance to respond. Okay?

Yes. But can I ask one question to her? Yes. You I know her now. Who would you want I'm not a

bit I'm not a bit this, I'm

the attorney.

She's she's acts as the city's attorney, so she presents the case

to us. That's her role.

Correct. That's gonna call the witness.

Yes. Okay.

Okay. So

Good afternoon. Could you please state your name for the record?