Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

Is this on? Alright.

I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate hearing for the city of Delray Beach. Cases are gonna be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise noted. I'd appreciate it if everybody would stop their conversations. This is going be the code enforcement for Delray Beach.

The cases are called in order unless otherwise noted. The city presents its evidence and testimony first, then you have an opportunity to review the evidence that the city presents and ask any questions of the city's witnesses, after which time you can ask your own questions and present your own evidence, after which time I will make a decision. This is a quasi judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So I'm going to ask if anyone is going to testify today, or you think you might testify, or there's a possibility that you might testify, would you please rise and raise your right hand and you will be sworn in.

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

Alright. The consent agenda postponed cases.

Requesting to approve the consent agenda as written.

So approved. Thank you. I have reviewed the minutes from April 2 and they are hereby approved.

Thank you.

Alright. I believe that the city wanted to reorder the agenda. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. We would like to call case number 7, please. Thank you.

Case number 7. Case number 7, IR code 26000647. The owners are two thirteen East Atlantic Randall officer on the case is Randall Strong.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here regarding case number 2600647 regarding 213 East Atlanta Avenue. My name is Randall Strong, court officer with the city of Darien Beach, Florida. This property was issued to be irreversible, a verbal violation. Service was accomplished by a certified regular male on 04/10/2026.

In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on the property 04/28/2026. The affidavit of repulsion is also included in the case files. I have not been in contact with the property owner as of late. The property was cited for a list of discharge. On 03/27/2026, I called officer Randall Strong observed an illicit discharge of HVAC.

Consent was in originated from the rear of the property. This discharge flowed into the public right of way public alleyway and directly into the city storm drainage system in a violation of the city ordinance code section 53.012, subsection a two c. Because of this discharge, has already entered the municipal storm water system. It impacted the environment. This offense is classified as an irreparable, irreversible violation.

No remedial action can be undue or authorized unauthorized discharge has already occurred. This property was also previously violated for the same issue on 04/24/2025 in the amount of $5,000. As of 05/06/2026, the property has not come to compliance. I also have 10 photographs

of the

property to the plaintiffs that I would like to introduce

into the evidence. Okay. Thank you. Can we get, did we already get their representation before we go

to the We did not. Would you like to make your appearance?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Richard Della Vero on behalf of the property owner, two thirteen East Atlantic LLC. Also with me is the general manager of the restaurant. His name is Daniel Sobey, s o b e y. My last name is spelled d as in David, e l l a, f as in Frank, e r a.

Thank you, sir. Go ahead.

I have 10 exhibits that I would like to introduce. This is exhibit one. This is the front of the of the restaurant. See the horses.

And when was that photograph taken?

This was this was taken on 03/31/2026. I'm sorry. Exhibit two was taken on 03/27/2026. This is the actual this is the this depicts a exhibit two showing the discharge going into the initial discharge going into the storm drain that's coming from the pipe.

So for clarification, is that coming from the pipe directly behind the City Oyster restaurant?

Yes. It is. In the real property. Yes.

Thank

Exhibit three depicts also discharge flowing through the storm drainage. This was taken on 03/27/2026.

And on the ground, if you can go back to exhibit three, just also describe when you say discharge, that is the AC condensation that you witnessed coming from behind the city oyster that's flowing into the city storm drain?

It's the asphalt water

pump. And Thank you. And as it's flowing, is it also picking up debris that's on the ground?

Yes. Is.

Thank you. And what type of debris was on the ground outside?

Translating debris. It's just debris from landscape. Just debris from the overgrown landscape.

Okay.

From right here.

And is there also it looks like there's some dark spots. Is there also grease on the ground as well from your review?

Well, my review is just look at just condensate water.

Okay. But that's but that's

Yes. Okay. Yes. This is it before. This is the this a different angle of the property. This was taken on April can't be able see it. 04/14/2026. This is shows another angle of the water going into the storm drainage.

And as you can tell, there's there's doors indicating the property is correct so you can see it on those photographs?

Yes. It is.

Thank you.

This is exhibit five taken on 04/14/2026. This shows an up close visual of the property, the pipe coming down from the rear of the property of City Orchard. So on the on the bottom, the puddle from the water that's coming down through the pipe.

So in this picture, exhibit five, you see it coming from the top of the property, which is kind of in the center of the photograph. Correct?

Yes.

Flowing down to the ground. Correct?

Yes.

And as there's are you talking about that in the center bottom of the photograph, that dark spot with the ripples that look like the, I guess, the reflection from water?

Yes. It is.

Okay. And is that what you're saying reflects in the other other photographs that is flowing into the city storm drain?

Absolutely. Yes.

Thank you.

And this is another picture exhibit six taken on 04/14/2026. Shows again the water coming from the pipe on the ground, discoloration to the concrete, flooring again inside the to the storm drainage.

And I I noticed that this of course, this is an irreparable, irreversible violation, violation and you initially reserved and what we're here for is the March 27. Correct?

Yes.

But on when you again went back on April 14, it was the same conditions that you witnessed on March 27. Correct?

Correct. Correct.

So this is just kind of a confirmation photo from the March 27. Correct?

Yes. It is.

Thank you.

This is another exhibit in Exhibit number seven showing the the video clip of it.

I see.

Was taken on 03/27/2026. It's showing a video clip of the water drawn to the according to the storm drains flowing to the storm drains. And this is a photo of the previous receipt from Cedar Oysters in the amount of $5,000. And this was this was back in April oh, back on April '14.

That is correct. So that's for the similar type of violation?

Yes.

Okay. And that's with was within five years. I believe you said it was 04/14/2025.

Yes. It is.

So, actually, that was less than a year.

Less than a year.

Yeah. Thank you.

And this is the posting that was taken on 04/28/2026, to the property. Exhibit number nine and exhibit 10 shows the affidavit of the posting also.

Okay. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the 10 photographs into evidence.

Mister Delavera?

If if I could voir dire on the the it was exhibit eight.

Go back to eight.

Oh, yeah.

May I?

Mhmm.

Thank you. Good afternoon, officer. General. This, receipt that you're showing of the, the $5,000 that was paid in April 2025, This that violation did not deal with the air conditioning condensation. Isn't that true? I just it it dealt with illicit discharge. Right. You don't know so as you sit here today, you don't know what the, quote, unquote, illicit discharge was.

I said, no. Was illicit illicit discharge.

Right. But fine. You don't know you can't say that it was air conditioning condensation. Correct?

It just says illicit discharge. That's all.

Okay. So the answer to my question is no. You can't say that it came from air conditioning condensation.

Again, my dish is discharged. That's what that's what the

following Okay.

Receipt says.

Judge, I moved strike to exhibit eight. It's not relevant.

And I'm gonna object to that. We do have testimony from a witness who will be able to testify. If you wanna if you wanna accept it as a demonstrative aid at this point and introduce the other one through seven and nine and ten into evidence and we can clarify if you wanna But do our original position is that it is relevant. It is illicit discharge and pursuant to chapter one sixty two, the violation just has to be for the same type of violation, which in that code section for what the violation was for, it was for the same code section fifty three zero one.

So you're entering it for the purposes of Well, actually violation or

Well, we're just entering yes. Just for purposes of repeat violation. Yes. But our position is if if you want to hear more testimony, you can. We'd ask that instead of striking it. But our original position is that it's relevant. It's a repeat violation pursuant to chapter one six two of the Florida statutes. For for the purposes of repeat violation, it just has to be the same type of violation under the code section. And And we're citing, which was the previous one, fifty three point zero one two, illicit discharge. Now, depending on what type of discharge is a different fact, but it's still discharged into the city storm water system.

Yeah. I'm getting all out. I'm gonna admit exhibits one through 10. So do you have anything further?

Nothing from this witness. We do have another witness.

Mister LaFayer, would you like to question the witness?

Yes. Thank you. So you would agree well, it seems that you are testifying conditioning condensation that was flowing out of that pipe that we saw in the prior exhibits. Right? Right. Right. So you you have no evidence that there's any pollutants in that condensation. Right? There's no grease in those in in that condensation. Correct? No dirt in that condensation. Correct?

Debris trash and debris.

Well, trash and debris is in the alleyway, but I'm talking about what is actually coming out of that pipe.

Yep. It's it's it's red water. Yes.

It's it's just plain water. Right? Yes. Okay. That's all I have, judge.

And it's just I just have one follow-up question. That is, water coming from the HVAC system. Correct? Correct. Thank you.

Anything further?

Yes. At this time, the city would like to call mister Cuesta.

Juan Cuesta, storm water engineer.

What else? No. I can ask you a couple questions. How long have you been employed with the city?

With the city of Delray Beach since 2024, so two years.

And where and and tell us just just briefly about your history working in this this industry.

Since 2015, I started with the city of Boynton Beach. And after nine, eight years there, then city of Derry Beach acquired my services.

And as a part of your services and your position, you have to become familiar with the city stormwater system. Correct. And are you familiar with the system and the, I guess, the drainage and everything related as it relates to behind the property where City Oyster is located? Yes. And that's located at 21213 East Atlantic Avenue in Dowery Beach, Florida?

Yes. I actually administer the MPDS program.

And what is the MPDS program?

It's the National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System.

Okay. And are you familiar with the city's code of ordinance regarding the the discharge in storm water?

Yes.

And for purposes of AC or HVAC water that flows into this city drainage, when is it permitted if it ever

has? To HVAC condensate, it's allowed to be discharged into the storm water system under two conditions. Number one, it must be approved by the public works director. Number two, it has to be a a direct connection, a direct piping without collecting any pollutants as a runoff as we see it here.

So just just let's get this this the first step out of the way. Was this property permitted to have AC condensation flow into the city's storm water system by the director?

Not to my

knowledge. Okay. And, you know, you have you've you've become familiar with this case, and you've researched to assist the code enforcement department. Correct? Yes. And you independently reviewed photographs, the ordinances, and any approvals for this location. Correct?

Correct. And

so as to the second part, could you describe, you know, what direct means?

Direct means that it will not have contact with any other surface, but it will be enclosed like direct piping, not not not as runoff onto the right of way or asphalt where it can pick up pollutants, especially behind restaurant where there's food handling and spills occur where then the spill can be carried into the storm water.

So System. Right? Simply put, does direct mean that it goes through some type of piping directly from the exit of the AC condensation directly in Correct.

The Storm Guard

system. Right? Correct.

So there will be some type of infrastructure that would route it directly. Correct?

Underground. Yes.

It's underground or above ground, but it's not it doesn't have to or whatever. The condensate does not travel on the ground. Correct?

I I'm gonna object to the leading nature of the of the questioning.

I'll allow it just to, you know, let the respondent answer.

Okay. So my next question is, did you have a chance to review these these photographs from the allegation date of the 03/27?

Yes.

And from your observations and and your visits to the site, what is on the ground that the condensate was distributing into the city's storm water system?

Well, as seen in the picture and is proper it's commonly seen in behind restaurants where trash food trash is being collected and disposed of, that there there will be markings of grease or byproduct of spills, whatever substance they but it's food related. But when you have constant runoff from that pipe there next to the structure, it may maybe there may be good chances of picking up those those pollutants into the storm drain.

Alright. So we're gonna take a look

at city's exhibit seven now.

You see here there's a shine on the on the floor. That's clearly indication that it's just not clear water, but there might be some sort of grease that add that shine that discolored multicolored look proper that when you see a, like, a grease peel from, let let's just say, like, a car wash, and you see the shine on the on the water on the top.

Based on your training and experience and your position in working with water and observing sites such as this and your observations of this site, does it appear that this is just clear water on the ground? No. What did what appears to be there?

It it looks like clear water up to the point where it's discharged, being discharged. But once it's on the asphalt and noticing that there are bins, which pretty much I I think they handle food, debris, or trash, I I I can conclude that there might be some the clear water, the condensate, may be picking up some pollutants. Okay.

And regardless of the pollutants, would this is this permitted

No. It's actually unsanitary to continually have water is damaging for the road, for the asphalt. It's a trip hazard as well because as you can tell, there's some buildup already there.

I'm object gonna to the trip hazard. I don't see how that's relevant.

That's the standard. Just speak to the water.

Oh, is there anything else you would like to add about the water?

I object to that narrative. That

would not be permitted. Hold on.

I'm sorry. Could you please repeat your answer, sir?

That would not be permitted. Yes. I was present when it occurred.

Okay. You So have personal knowledge. Correct? Yes. And what was the violation for?

The violation was that, I guess, there was a spill. There was food debris on the ground, and an employee from the business was hosing down the vegetables and all the food debris into the catch basin. But at that moment, also, we called the attention of the manager of whoever was representing the the restaurant that the condensate was inappropriate as well. So we we did mention that to them. So

just specifically for the violation, was that a violation for five, the same one here, five three zero one two eight three c discharge?

It's illicit discharge. Whether you discharge milk or mud or whatever source, if in the storm water system, we only want rain water. We we don't want people washing things off into our storm drain because then it becomes a a health issue. We don't want to feed rodents or any

Oh, okay. You just, you know, what just simply, was this the same type of violation?

Right. Oh. It's unsanitary.

Thank you. No further questions.

Ma'am? Thank you. Discharge, these, approvals that you've referred to, you know, the direct connection, that in writing anywhere?

Yes. It's in the code of ordinance.

Where in the code of ordinance?

Under illicit discharge. It's quoted here in the violation notice.

Dealing with a direct, requirement of a direct connection.

Mhmm.

Yeah. Where is that?

The direct connection is

what the director will approve.

So it's not written in specifically that a direct connection is required?

That's what the director of board approved.

Look on that dot you have that document in front of you that has 553.012 a to c. Right? Mhmm. Read to us exactly where it says that a direct connection connection is required.

Objection. Ask an answer.

He hasn't answered it.

That's why I'm asking answer. It says here, unless determined by the director to be

unacceptable. In this case, the director has considered this to be unacceptable. Unacceptable.

And where is that in writing?

In on only direct piping. Your your client has not submitted a formal letter requesting permission, but I I took the liberty of addressing back in April. I approached the director, and I asked them if if she will consider acceptable for us to have under piping. And and the director said that that that's something that she can consider. Now the the the business needs to initiate and send a letter to the director, and we have not received that yet.

Okay. So you would agree with me that within that within the code, there's nothing that says that a a direct connection, is isn't approved?

That that is something that we will consider. What is not approved is what we see right now.

Right. Okay. So

So we're just waiting for you to send a letter to the Polyworks director, proposing that. And that's and that's what we had communicated in the past.

To whom did you communicate that?

I can't recall. It's been almost a year, but it was somebody that seemed to be a manager or because they they asked us, so we gave them ideas of what may Do

you recognize this gentleman standing to my left? No. You don't recognize him to be the manager of City Oyster?

I do not recall. I do not recall.

So he's you're saying he's not the guy, not the person that you relayed this information to in April

Not not of 2025? To my memory.

Okay. Alright. But in April 2025, it was a dishwasher or some employee rinsing off vegetables.

Mhmm.

Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. You're saying that at the time, the condensation issue was was noticed.

Correct. Correct? It was mentioned to whoever came out from there. So we let them know.

Citation of the air conditioning condensation at that time?

No. I think the person said that

they were gonna be addressing to to give them time. So that's why I I myself didn't go back there thinking that we were gonna receive a letter, but we we have not yet.

Okay. You told that person to send a letter?

Yeah. I told them that that this is, that they need

to get approval from the director. And and they say, well, what can they approve? I say, well, underground pipe and direct connection.

Okay. So you don't recall whether this was the gentleman that you spoke to, but you remember that conversation?

I I do remember mentioning that. Yes. Because it's it's common. It's common. Many many other restaurants that may have the same issue. So that's that's what we can agree with.

Okay. You're saying that that that what we see in the photograph in seven is evidence of of food grease or something?

Right. The the shine of of the water. It doesn't just look like clean water.

Okay. But that that was never tested or anything like that. Correct?

We don't have to

test dirty water. We we just go by appearance.

I I'm asking if it was tested.

No. Okay.

And you don't know to the extent that it could be any kind of food. There are other restaurants back in that back in that alleyway. Correct?

Correct.

Right. So you even if if that were some kind of food byproduct, you can't say that that came from City Oyster. Correct? You can't say definitively, I mean. Right?

I'll leave it up to you. I don't I'm

not Okay.

So you

so you don't know the answer to that question?

Well, it's behind it's behind City Oyster, so I I cannot assume that somebody else came from a different restaurant.

Well, if I mean, rainwater rainwater will move debris in the alleyway. Right?

Mhmm. And that's why restaurants have the responsibility to keep them clean.

Right. So so if if there is food, debris, or grease from another restaurant and there's rain, that's gonna push the grease around. Right?

I if I recall well the pitch of the road, you are at the highest point. So I don't see any other restaurant pushing grease towards this restaurant.

Okay. As you recall.

I'm I'm pretty certain 99%.

Okay. Alright. And how have you how have you measured that?

Usually, runs downhill.

Okay.

So never seen water running uphill.

Okay.

So And for my recollection because I drive around when it rains Mhmm. Just to see how the storm water system is working. I've never seen runoff running from the west to the east on that alleyway.

Okay.

And I believe that's the first restaurant there.

You you don't seem sure?

No. I'm saying that I'm sure. Yeah.

Okay. You said you believe, and now you say you're sure.

Well, if you wanna play with my words. I'm I'm trying

to be honest.

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not playing with your

words. Okay.

I'm just trying to understand.

I am sure, sir.

Thank you. Alright.

Just a minute. That's all I have. K.

Just have one follow-up question. Just to be clear, based on your review of all the city records and your previous discussions and knowledge of this case, is there an approval by the director for the way this storm drainage system I'm sorry, the AC condensation was flowing into our storm drain system on 03/27/2026. That's the property. No. Thank you.

Any other questions? No. Does the city have any other witnesses? No. The floor is yours.

Thank you. I'll call Dan Sobe. Avis Sobe, why don't you introduce yourself and, tell us what you do for a living?

My name is Daniel Sobe. I'm the general manager of City Oyster.

Mister Sobe, the who's favor of talking into the microphone? Sure. Sir.

My name is Daniel Sobe. I'm the general manager of City Oyster, and I've been managing that restaurant for over seven years.

Okay. We heard talk about, April 2025, violation. Are you aware of that instance? Yes. Okay. Were you present when city code code people observed what they alleged to be a violation?

No. I was not there that

day. Okay. So what what did you hear about that violation?

That our dishwasher was hosing off the alley. Remember till about 2025?

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Our dishwasher was hosing the back alley, and I guess he was hosing some debris in the storm drain.

Okay. Did do you know anything about a city official making mention of the air conditioning condensation? No. Okay. But you weren't there present? Correct. Okay. Did any of the any managers bring it to your attention that well, how was it brought to your attention about the, the hosing of the the food?

I when I got the citation, I looked at our video camera.

Okay.

And then I went to, town hall and, spoke with someone there, and they told me what had happened and what they had witnessed.

Okay. And and who was that person?

It might have been Henry. I'm not sure if that it was him in 2025, but someone told me that the dishwasher I said he's spraying water in the storm drain. He said, no. He's spraying more than water down the storm drain.

Okay. And did this Henry this is Henry right here that's

That's Henry.

Oh. I

know. Another individual. Mhmm. Okay. Not the person that just testified.

Correct.

Okay. Did Henry say anything to you about the air conditioning condensation?

Not then.

Okay. Prior to this violation in, March, you know, of this year, was it ever brought to your attention that the the the city had an issue with this air conditioning condensation?

No. Okay.

That's all I have.

Miss Warren? I don't have

any questions.

Do you have any other witnesses? No? Alright. I'll hear argument. Yes.

So we'll start. Today, we're here for a violation of city code of ordinance fifty three zero one two, discharge prohibited in storm water, which states that under no condition shall the discharge of domestic sanitary industrial commercial waste be permitted into the storm water system. Further, any discharge into the storm water system not composed entirely of storm water is generally prohibited. In this case, we have a discharge of AC condensation. The whole purpose of, you know, determining whether an approval will be necessary is because the water drags other pollutants and other items on the ground into the city's storm water system.

We've heard overwhelming evidence and saw photographs that indeed the condensation from the HVAC system was flowing into the city's storm water system, not only regular or HVAC water, but as well as other pollutants and contaminants on the ground flowing into the system. So, think this is pretty simple as far as the facts go. It sounds like the argument is whether the AC condensation was permitted. And we've heard testimony from mister Wesas that this was not and would not be approved by the director unless there was some type of direct connection from the the AC location into the city's storm water system. So this that's the city's position on this case.

And then you also heard testimony that, you know, that would be purposes for senti or for sanctions of whether or not this was a second violation.

So from the code that air air conditioning condensation is accepted ex with an e, e x c p t, from the the prohibitions of discharge. The city's taken the position that that it was communicated to the owner, but I I don't know that that's been definitively shown through the testimony. But even so, even from the the code officer's testimony, it's just pure water that's coming out of this coming out of this pipe. It's not there's no pollutant in it. There's no grease in it.

There's no dirt in it. I think that that that what I'm hearing is, well, the the alleyway has has potential pollutants. But the the same the same issue would occur in a in a rainstorm. So I don't consider this to be you know, this is not a willful violation of putting intentionally putting pollutants into the city's storm drain system. So I I don't believe that they've proven, you know, a a a valid intentional violation of the code considering the facts as we have heard them.

As far as the prior violation, we know that it was something completely different. It was a a an employee spraying hose water on some food items, which I think is completely different from what we have here. So I submit that the city has not presented a sufficient case of a violation of the of the of the code. And I asked the court the I asked the officer to find in favor of of City Oyster.

So may I just make one clear clarification just as a rebuttal? The city's expert from the from mister Cuesta provided credible evidence based on his familiarity with the area, based on his knowledge of the previous violation. It was pretty clear that he remembers what happened. And it was pretty clear that he remembers the conversation he had. And we also heard testimony that the manager or I forgot his title was not even there during the last violation, was not even present.

So the person that was present during the violation testified that he spoke to a representative, advised him that the condensation was an issue, that it was not permitted or acceptable, even advised that they you know, he had previous conversations with the director who said it was unacceptable. However, she would consider it to be acceptable if certain measures were taken, which were communicated to the property owner. Here we are back again in March 27, you know, after they were previously told about the condensation being unacceptable. We have this violation. So I I think the argument that the water may have been clear at the point that it exited onto the street and dragged all of those items on the ground, you know, that's the reason why you're supposed to have those proper protections and mechanisms in place and to have those types of items that were suggested to prevent this from happening.

So I I it's think clear that there was a violation, from the evidence presented and we will ask that you find our evidence and our witness is credible and find that there was a a violation. We can't take this back. This information which we heard the testimony of, you know, someone, you know I understand he's saying the code officer said it looks clear, but we have an expert who deals with water. That's their main role here. Is saying that it looks like there are some glossy items as well as obvious as if there's food and other debris on the ground, it doesn't look clear on the photo. So I would ask that you take your observations and common sense in this case and find that there was a violation.

What remedy is the city seeking?

The city is asking for a one fine of $15,000 to be paid in third age by 06/07/2026.

May I respond to that? Yes. Go ahead. I I I I think that that is is excessive. If if if the officer is going to find a violation. For the reasons that I've said about the nature of the the discharge, it's not grease that's being forced into the drain. They're not putting grease in the drain or pollutants in it. It's it's the AC. It's the runoff from the AC. So I don't think that that is, agrees egregious to require a $15,000 fine. Fine. I I think that that's excessive. And I'd ask the court or the the officer to reject that recommendation.

Yeah. I was just just saying, I believe we presented evidence that was entered that the previous fine was 5,000 just under a year ago for the same code violation?

But but

Whether depending on the different item that was transferred into the water, but 53012 is discharged into the city storm water systems.

I think we're going around in circles at this point. So this is what I think. The facts here are really not that difficult to ascertain. They're they're largely undisputed. There's clearly water running from an AC condensation. That water is running down the alley. That water is picking up debris as it runs down the alley, and it is putting that debris in the storm drain. That's pretty clear. It's also clear that there's no necessarily, there's a pollutant in the AC. It's clearly AC discharge.

I don't think there's any evidence that there's an intentional, but there's no there's no mens rea for this. This is just a discharge. There is some dispute as to the meaning of 53 o one two between the parties, I can tell. As I read it, there's there's two prominent sections here. The first is that any discharge into the storm system not composed entirely of storm water is generally prohibited, which is the base standard here.

There is some dispute between the parties as to whether or not it was conveyed that the director found the discharge unacceptable, but I I find the testimony of the city's witnesses as as certainly believable that they did convey this and and the representative from the city oyster wasn't here at the time that that was conveyed. But I find that to be certainly believable and and plausible. So where does that leave us? So we have a water condensation from an AC running across a an alleyway picking up debris and and putting itself into the storm drain. That does appear to be a technical violation of 53 o two, and I make such and I make such finding.

As to the city's recommendation, I agree with the respondent that considering the circumstances here, that's probably severe since they were not directly dumping discharge. But, you know, they were violating the section. So I'm gonna issue a onetime fine in the amount of $5,000 payable what date were you looking for?

June 7 or one time around thirty.

06/07/2025. And I recommended the respondent to get with the city to find an acceptable way to put their AC discharge into the storm drain without running through

one. Case number one, IR code 26000679. Property owners are case is Haines Bautista Hernandez.

Okay. I believe the respondent respondent is is president. President.

We We can can swear swear swear swear him him in. In.

Anyone else that came in late that hasn't been sworn in? Now is your chance. Rise and raise your hand.

I'm sorry.

It's just you?

I'm in.

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

Please proceed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, special magistrate. My name is Haines Batista Hernandez, code enforcement officer with the city of Delray Beach Clean and Safe division. I am here regarding a violation of outdoor solicitation and unauthorized business activity located at the 411 East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E, Delray Beach. On 04/15/2026, the Clean and Safe Division observed employees of the located at 411 East Atlantic Avenue, Suite E, actively soliciting pedestrians directly in front of the business. Employees were persistently approaching individuals in the public right away to promote services and solicit business.

These activities were conducted outside of the approved in indoor premises of the business and within the public right of way. This conduct constitutes a violation of section four point six point six a of the City of Derey Beach land development regulations, which prohibits the use of outdoor areas for conducting business activities, including solution without proper authorization. A review of city records confirmed that the business has not obtained approval or conditional use authorization permitting outdoor business operations. Additionally, the observed activity does not fall under any permitted outdoor use categories. This property has a prior history of the same violation on 03/05/2026 at a special magistrate hearing.

One respondent was found in violation of section four point six point six subsection eight subsection one through three and was ordered to pay a onetime fine in the amount of 1,500 within sixty days. The order also stated the certified copy may be recollect record recorded in public records of the Palm Beach County Court, and once recorded, shall constitute a lien against the property in accordance with chapter one sixty two for the statutes. Despite the ruling, the violation has reoccurred. A notice of violation was posted on the property on 04/23/2026, and a notice of violation was sent by certified first class mail on 04/21/2026.

Would you like to proceed with the photograph? Yes.

The exhibit one is a photograph of showing an employee of StartMed with a client soliciting in front of the property.

What was the date of that photograph?

That photograph was taken on April 15.

And that's the date of the violation. Correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Let's go to city's exhibit two. What does this reflect?

That's the posting affidavit. Six exhibit three? Exhibit three is just a photograph of the front of the business, and you could see on the sidewalk, there's the the display table.

And was that display table there on March I'm sorry. 04/15/2025? Yes. 2026? Yes, ma'am. And are you, familiar with the previous violation?

Yes. It was the exact same violation.

Right. And during that violation, it was told to them that that was not permitted. Correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the three, photographs into evidence.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

Moore Pillo.

Can you spell your last name?

P I l o.

Mister Pilo, what's your, relation to the, four one one Realty Investment LLC?

I own the business.

You own the the business that's renting that space?

Correct.

Mister Pilo, have you gotten permission from the property owner to be here on their behalf? Yes. Any objection?

No objection.

Mister Pielo, do you have any objections to the photographs that the city would like to put in evidence?

Yes.

What is your objection to those photographs?

For the first photograph

Let's go back to the first.

So as you could see on exhibit three, we have to stand outside. And when people approach and choose their samples, my representatives are basically just going outside and handing it to them in the back. So there he was not approaching it. He was not approaching the customer and asking her to come to her. She Mister Pilo. Yes?

What I'm asking you is whether you object to the photographs. If you want I mean, I I will give you time to make your argument.

Sorry then. No. No objection then for the photographs. I'm sorry. I made some mistake.

So admitted. Does the city have anything further? No. Okay. Now it's your turn. Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

No. It's alright.

So as I said, on the previous

violation telling me that you so you do have a stand out there. Right?

Yes. But on the previous violation, I didn't get the violation for the display. You guys allowed me to have the display outside. I have allowance for the display outside, and the violation from the last violation was for soliciting, for approaching the people, for giving out the samples, and ask and ask them to come into the store. Since then, we basically are not doing it. Clearly on the picture, the lady just came up front to the store, asked to grab a sample, and my representative just put it in a little bag

for her.

May I ask some cross examination questions? Good afternoon. You were you were here for the the last violation. Correct? It was less than two months ago?

Right.

And I believe when you were here, you made the argument that a Juan Delinda West Kelsey, your previous code enforcement officer, permitted you to have items on the side. Correct? Correct. And we provided testimony evidence that and and told you at the hearing that that was not correct.

Not correct. That was not a part of the violation and

you can No. No. I'm not asking if it was a part of the violation. You stated that you could do that and and we presented evidence that that was incorrect.

Right. Because it's a part of my zoning.

So your testimony today that you are zoned and have an approval to have items outside of your business? These are not items. No. That stand or is it your testimony that a part of your zoning and your site plan approval that you're allowed to have that podium outdoors?

Yes. Well, I I'm I don't see anything on the violation stating that I'm not allowed to have it outside. If you would tell me today that I'm not allowed to have it outside, then, okay, I will understand. But previously to today, I never heard about the fact that I'm not allowed to have the display outside. I've had this display over there for five years.

So let me ask you this. A part of your business's approval was to have item conduct business inside of your building. Correct?

Yes. Conduct business inside.

Do I have anything further?

It's just like a restaurant having a say signature signing in outside. So and then people will come in and ask the waitress what is on the menu or what is the happy hour.

Okay. May I call recall the witness?

Yeah.

At this time, the city would like to call mister Henry Thompson. Good afternoon, mister Thompson. What is your position with the city?

I'm the clean and safe administrator.

So as part of being the clean and safe administrator, are you familiar with with businesses located in this area of the city? Correct. And are you familiar with this business located at 411 East Atlantic Avenue?

Yes. Correct.

And as a condition of their approval, are they allowed to conduct business outside of the business?

I actually don't know definitively, but I can research it. But I can guarantee you that's that's incorrect. He's he's not allowed to have that outside.

Alright. And and based on your experience with this case and reviewing the previous violation, were you present during that violation?

I was.

And during that violation, did testimony come out that they weren't allowed to do things outside of the door of the business?

Yes. Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Your honor, the violation was for soliciting, not for the display. So we stopped with the soliciting. If you see exhibit at three if you can show exhibit at three.

Was it the same code section?

It was the same code section. Just for clarify, the the the violation was for conducting business outside.

That's correct.

Correct. Okay.

I'm sorry. Did you wanted to see exhibit three?

Yes, please. You can see that on the left of the door, there is a little bench. It's a new bench that I basically put for the representatives to clearly just sit over there. And when a client voluntarily just approaches the stand, they would just beg it to put it in the little bag for them. So I'm really trying to do everything in my best in order to come with the city's compliance.

It's been difficult, you know, with the off season right now and with having a competitor running in front of my street. I would I was pretty much confused about the last violation. I really thought it was all about the soliciting, so we stopped with the soliciting thing. And I'm just trying to have people approach to our door by themselves. And I would love to

keep You still can't conduct the business outside the building. That's what the code section says. But what is the what is the city asking for here?

The city is asking for a one time fine in the amount of $10,000 to be paid within thirty days by 06/06/2026.

And it should be noted that the I believe there's testimony for the code enforcement officer that the you know, going toward the gravity and the previous violation, that that's actually outstanding as well.

Your honor, I

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What is outstanding at

this time? The previous fine.

Previous fine is

not paid. It's I still I still haven't paid it. That's right.

Mister Pielo, I'll give you the last word.

I clearly didn't get confused and didn't not know that I'm not allowed to put a display outside. If it's needed, I would just take it out of there. But as you can see from exhibit exhibit three and exhibit one, there's no people standing outside. If my representative was outside, it's clearly just to put the sample in the bag for the client. So I'm asking the city to just, you know, waive the violation and give me another chance, and they won't see the display outside anymore.

Why haven't you paid the previous fine?

It's difficult times. I will I'm paying to that before the two the two months ends. It's it's been difficult.

Mister Pielo, I'm gonna give you a little bit of a break here. But just so there's lack of clarity, you cannot conduct business outside your building. Do you understand me?

Yeah.

Alright. Case 2600679 to make the filing findings a fact and life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of four point six point six a one to three. The filing said violation is irreparable. I issue a one time fine. What was the original fine? Was it 1,500? Alright. I'm gonna double it to 3,000. But I will tell you this. If you show up in front of me one more time, I'm gonna hit you with the maximum fine I can do it because I don't think there's any confusion anymore. Are you confused anymore?

No.

Alright. $3,000 payable by 06/06/2026.

Thank you. Case number two, Code 26000602. The property owner is Charles a Smith the third. Property address is 1033 Brooks Brooks Lane, and the code officer on the case is Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon. My name is code enforcement supervisor Latoya Thompson. I'm here regarding a CRL repair case. For discretion, the property owner lives in Germany. So you'll hear me say something different, and that's why I'll be saying it.

On 03/05/2026, I investigated a complaint about street flooding caused by a deteriorating seawall located at 1033 Brooks Lane, Delray Beach, Florida. While on the Intracoastal Waterway, I observed the seawall at the property was deteriorating and in need of repair. After further investigation, it would just it was determined that the condition constitutes a violation of the City Of Delray Beach code of ordinance section 100.4 subsection a through c, seawalls, and the city of, Delray Beach land development regulations section seven point one point seven subsection d sub subsection four and subsection d subsection five. I have eight photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created 03/07/2026.

The magistrate violation was emailed on 03/19/2026. Compliance was required by 04/17/2026. The violation was posted to the property 03/18/2026. A reinspection was conducted via EPL on 04/18/2026. No permit has been applied for as of that date. I have been in contact with the property owner who, once again, currently resides in Germany.

And what have your communications been with the property owner?

I've been communicating with him back and forth regarding, what he needs to do as far as, getting a, marine engineer to give him an estimate about the seawall to contact the city. He's also been in communications with Madison as well.

And Madison is in what department?

Madison is in development service. She's the permit manager.

Okay. So you've had verbal and email communications?

Verbal and email. Yes, ma'am.

And they're aware of the violation? Yes, ma'am. And did you advise them of the date? Yes. Yes, the property. Correct?

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Exhibit one was taken on 03/05/2026. This is a photo of the the tearing seawall.

Exhibit two, also taken on 03/05/2026, is also a another photo of the the tearing the deterioration of the seawall. Exhibit three taken on 03/05/2026, another area of the seawall with a gap. According to the ordinance, you shouldn't have a gap right there.

And when you say a gap, do you mean on the left side of the property? Can you just highlight circle that area? Hold on. Let me see if I can do it. Are you referring to this area here

Yes, ma'am. Which

is where the seawall is disconnected from the neighboring property?

From the neighboring property. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Exhibit five is taken on 03/18/2026. That's the posting of violation. Exhibit six is the address 1033 Brooks Lane taken on 03/18/2026. Exhibit seven is an affidavit affidavit of of posting and also mailing. And exhibit eight is a noncompliance. After doing a reinspection, no permits were pulled. The date, on the April 18.

So in this case, we have two violations. Correct?

Yes, ma'am.

The violation of 100 o four a through c seawalls for the disconnect and the improper construction. Correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And then we also have a violation in our land development regulation of seven point one point seven d four and five for the improper maintenance.

Yes,

ma'am. And that's causing the elevation. Can you talk a little bit about the elevation of the how the structure is of the seawall?

As far as that, the structure of the as you see in the pictures let me go back. The cracks the different cracks and damages to the seawall. And let me go here. See how the neighboring seawall is above that? That seawall needs to be brought up.

So you mean, like, the height?

The height needs to be brought up to the current code.

Okay. Thank you.

What does the property owner convey to you about their intentions here?

Currently, the contractor is here that is representing the property owner that can speak. Sir,

can you tell me your name, please?

Yes. My name is Lawrence Robbins, and I've been sworn in.

Can you spell your last name, sir?

Robins, r o b b I n s. I'm the owner of Docks and Seawalls. We're general contractors operating in Lantana, Florida.

So what's going on with the Seawall?

So I I I've inspected it, and I've had a an engineer three times, actually. We've had a hard time because we haven't had low tides, he the engineer insisted that he looks at it at low tide. And he agrees, and so does the owner, by the way, that we need to start a a program to do resurfacing, to make that small area connection and bring it up to code. And as far as the flooding goes, we'll just see what happens. It shouldn't flood through that seawall.

There is a a city owned street train right there on that's located on the very west end of of the property, but we're not gonna consider that as a problem. That's the city's problem. We're definitely going to do, maintenance on that wall and, add add an amount of elevation to ensure that with the with the king tides, you don't have water slopping over the top.

What what's your time frame here?

Well, be because of the tidal wall, it's it's very tidally affected to do it right. And because I'm a general contractor, I've gotta do it right. And I I would say probably within the next thirty days, we should get enough low tides to get a good start on it and do the work. It's

When would you pull the permits?

I could pull the permit for the for the curb almost immediately. My as soon as my engineer gives me the drawing that I can give to the city. As far as the maintenance work goes, a permit is not necessary to do that sort of that sort of work. But almost immediately, I'll be able to get a permit for that cap addition.

Seeking here? The city suggests, to apply for or obtain approved issued permit on or before 07/07/2026, so a fine of a $100 per day will be assessed against the property until compliance is achieved.

I think that's very acceptable.

Yeah. I think it's pretty reasonable. Alright. In case 26000602, make the filing findings of fact on life. I notice it's fished to find the property in violation of the listed code sections, specifically the condition of the seawall. Spotted has until 07/07/2026 to pull a permit and begin work or a fine of up to $100 per day paint may issue. It's a lot of time, but I hopefully, you'll get to it a little earlier than that.

Very good. Thank you.

Magistrate, I'd like to confirm. It's going to be a $100 a day or

two?

Yes.

Thank you.

That's after July 7 if we don't comply.

That is correct, sir. Okay. Case number three. Case number three, code 2600604. The property owner is David j the third and Kelly j Long. Property address is 744 Sea Sage Drive. And the officer on the case is code enforcement supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon. Special magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson.

Code Hold on one second. Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Alright. Just for future if you hear your case call, just go ahead and proceed to the podium up here. I'm sorry, officer Thompson. Please go ahead.

I'm here regarding a structural a structure that was built without a permit within the required setbacks located at 744 Sea Sage Drive, Delray Beach, Florida. On 03/05/2026, I investigated a city a citizen complaint regarding a neighboring property located at 744 Sea Sage Drive, Delray Beach, Florida. During the investigation, I observed a structure located on a dock. It was determined that the size and location of the structure on the dock does not comply with the city of Delray Beach setback requirements. Permission was not granted for the structure to be built on the dock, which constitute a violation of the city of Delray Beach land development regulation code section four point three point four subsection a and four point three point four subsection h four, base district development standards.

I have four four photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created 03/07/2026. A magistrate violation was mailed first class and certified mail on March and posted at City Hall 03/25/2026. Compliance was required by 04/21/2026. The violation was posted to the property 03/25/2026. A reinspection was conducted via e EPL on 04/22/2026, and it was confirmed that no permits have been applied for. I have also had direct contact with the contractor regarding this matter.

I'll do share.

Myself, Madison, who's also here, she's the permit manager, and other city employees, was speaking to the contractor regarding on, what he needs to do to keep the structure on the dock, and he would have to apply for a variance. We explained correction. Madison explained to him the process of the variance. He seems as if he wanted to keep this structure on the dock but never made any attempt to apply for a variance.

How long ago was this conversation?

This conversation was April 6. April 6.

So the the structure is not permitted, and it can't be permitted in its current form. Is that essentially correct?

So just just to be clear, the structure, we never received an initial building permit for the structure.

Or or permission to.

Or even permission to.

Have it on the dock.

Just to be clear, there is a process that has to go before it even gets to permanent. Believe there's a variance that may that may need to be obtained. So there are steps. So what we're asking for is, you know, to bring this property into compliance, they can just remove the remove the structure or they can attempt to get a building permit which will require a variance which extends the time frame. So I think that's why there is a a bifurcated ask here.

Within thirty days, apply for the variance and obviously meet with city staff or remove it or obtain the building permit within the sixty days time frame which would include the variance. So we're, you know really, essentially, it's just bringing the property into compliance. So I'm not sure how how best you see for us to put it in the order. You can say bring it into compliance by contacting

the Developments.

The development services department.

Complicated. Why don't we just give them sixty days one way or another?

Okay. So sixty days to bring the property into compliance as, you know, as determined through communications with the development services department. I'm not sure how we're gonna write it.

I I don't know that that it has to that I that I have to even go that far. They can bring it in compliance within sixty days either by removing it or by getting it properly permitted, and there's a process. But I don't think we need to put that in the order.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Does that work for the city?

Yes. That's fine. Yes.

Alright. In case 26000604, make the following findings in fact on life I notice it's official to find the property in violation listed code section, specifically the structure built on the dock without proper permitting. Respondent has sixty days to bring the well, let's make it a day certain. Right? What's sixty days from now? July

July 7? July 7.

That'll work for me.

Yeah. July 7.

Alright. Respondent has till July 7 to bring the property into compliance or a fine of up to what were you asking?

$100.

$100 per day may issue.

Thank you. Case number four, code 26000628. The property owner is 222 North Ocean Boulevard LLC. The registered agent is Blaine c Dickinson. The property address is 218 North Ocean Boulevard. And, again, the code officer on the case is code enforcement supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon, special magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson, code enforcement supervisor for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding construction site condition and erosion control sentiment violation located at 218 North Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach. On 03/09/2026, code enforcement received a citizen complaint concerning a demolished construction site that was probably that was possibly being used for storage, staging, and other activities unrelated to its intended purpose. A building inspector investigated the complaint and observed the construction material scattered throughout the site, a dumpster filled with trash and concrete washed from a mixer.

Additionally, the site has been demolished for over a year with with no subsequent construction activity, and the property has not been properly maintained, including failure to side the site. These conditions constitute a violation of the city of Delray Beach land development regulations, specifically 4.43 subsection I one through 11, construction site conditions and restrictions, and subsection four point six point seventeen subsection d subsection four, erosion and sediment control methods. I have 13 photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was created on 03/19/2026. A magistrate violation was male, first class certified male, and posted to City Hall 03/24/2026.

Compliance was required by 04/22/2026. The violation was posted to the property 03/25/2026. A reinspection was conducted 04/24/2026, and the condition of the construction site remains the same. I've had con I have had contact with a representative from the construction development. The city is requesting that all materials must be properly stored and the site be sotted on or before 05/21/2026.

Failure to comply will result in a fine of a $100 per day assessed to the against the property until appliances can achieve achieved. Exhibit let's see. Exhibit one through six was taken by the building inspector who's currently here. Would you like him to speak on behalf of the Okay.

You probably should.

William Dirt.

Please sit here, sir.

So just

in case the governor has questions. Okay. Good afternoon. Could you please state your full name for the record and your position with the city?

William Durer, and I'm a structural inspector.

Okay. And are you familiar with this property that we're here for today?

Yes. And

are I believe these are your photographs here?

Yeah. I believe the first six of them, like she said. Six.

And then is it a fair and accurate representation of what you saw?

It is.

And when you just go through them, you could just describe what you saw. So city's exhibit one, what did you see on the property?

Well, you can see miscellaneous miscellaneous wood, things like that, dumpster, assorted. There's rebar back there in the background. It's very large site. It's a double lot, and it's just kinda screwed about.

Okay. City 602?

More of the same.

City 603.

Yep. Yep. Again, more of the same type of material. Looks like form boards there.

And is this obviously not permitted on the site?

I'm not

Well, who

did aware of what's permitted or what isn't. I I was directed by my boss to, due to a citizen complaint, go to the site and make some observations.

Okay. And you provided this to the code enforcement department to determine whether or not it was a violation?