Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

Is the city ready?

Yes.

Alright. I hereby call this meeting to order. This is the code enforcement special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. The cases will be heard generally in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless you hear otherwise. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium on my left hand side. The city will present its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence the city has presented and ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which you can present your own testimony and evidence, and then I will make a decision. This is a quasi judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So if you're going to testify today or you think you might testify or there's a possibility that you might testify, I'd ask that you rise and raise your right hand so you can be sworn in.

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

Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Senate agenda. Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written.

So approved. We don't have any minutes.

Minutes have been deferred for the next special magistrate hearing.

Alright. So let's start with number one.

Case number one code 26000599 the property owners are Blavet and Marie R. Fellamy the property address is 5195 Northwest 6th Street and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean Baptiste good afternoon Jean Baptiste Chantel code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. This property 5195 Northwest 6th Street was issued a notice of violation on 03/05/2026 for an addition built to the rear of property without building permits. Service was accomplished by certified and regular male on 04/03/2026. In addition both the property and City Hall were posted on 04/06/2026.

An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have had contact with property owner. This property was cited for two point four point one three subsection b for building permits. As of 05/21/2026 the property has not came into compliance. I have seven photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce as evidence.

Exhibit one shows the front of the property. Photo was taken 03/02/2026. Exhibit two shows the shed, the addition that was built without permit on 03/02/2026. This photo was taken from the rear of property. I had entered the neighbor's property to get access to be able to see the addition that was built.

Exhibit three is a closer picture from the rear of the property showing the addition. Photo taken 03/02/2026. Exhibit four is the affidavit of posting which I post on property 04/06/2026. Exhibit five was a photo of the posting on property on 04/06/2026. Exhibit six was a reinspection on May 2026.

Exhibit seven is affidavit of non compliance which was taken on 05/06/2026. The resident have applied for permits but has not been obtained yet. They have to submit an owner builder's form. So these are my seven photos submitted of this case.

At this time I would like to introduce them into evidence.

Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Seeing no without objection to admitted.

What is your recommendation?

The city is asking 30 days to come in compliance or a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved.

What's the date certain?

And the date is 06/20/2026.

Thank you.

Officer do you think thirty days is sufficient amount of time to get the permits in this case?

I believe it should be sufficient. Yes.

As long as they complete the form?

Correct. They have to complete the form and obtain the permits.

Alright. In case 26000599, I make the following findings a fact and life, notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of two point four point one three b. They need a building permit for the shed and the rear of the property. The respondent has until 06/20/2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to a $100 per day measure. Thank

you. Case number two. Code 26000658 the property owner is faquel ex Santos the property address is 3320 Blvd Chatelain and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean Baptiste good afternoon Jean Baptiste Chantel code enforcement officer for the city of Dairy Beach this property 332 Blvd Shadow Lane was issued a notice of violation on 04/07/2026 for an addition built to the site of property without approved building permit. Service was accomplished by a certified male on 04/09/2026. In addition both the property and City Hall were posted on 04/09/2026.

An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had contact before the magistrate meeting with property owner. This property was cited for 2.4.13 subsection b for building permits. As of 05/13/2026 the property has not came into compliance. I have eight photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce as evidence.

Exhibit one, this photo was taken from the street view showing the complete property on 04/01/2026. Exhibit two is the second photo zooming in showing where the addition was built to the side of the property as well as new windows. This photo was taken on 04/01/2026. Exhibit three is a second photo of the same angle taken on 04/01/2026. Exhibit four is the affidavit of posting which was posted on 04/09/2026.

Exhibit five is posting on property 04/09/2026. Exhibit non compliance as of 05/13/2026. Exhibit seven is my final photo of the addition, 05/13/2026. Exhibit eight is a second photo from the street view taken of the property on 05/13/2026.

At this time, sir, we'd like to introduce the eight photographs into evidence.

Can you gentlemen tell me your names, please?

Ishmael Exantis, son. This is my father, Fego Exantis. Do

you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence? What

do you mean exactly by objections, as in saying that they're invalid or incorrect?

That would be essentially it. No.

I don't have any objections.

Alright. I'm gonna admit those photographs into evidence. Does the city have anything further?

Not at this time.

Alright. What's going on?

So we wanted to add something to the back of our home. And we started and we realized there were

Would you like us to direct you to a photograph?

No. One day I came home and that's when I saw the photograph with this on the

On the notice.

Okay. But prior to that, I remember going through the site and reading. I think it said something like, you know, homeowners can, you know, build or make renovations, add things to the home. So to my knowledge, I thought, you know, we can start the process as my father being a homeowner, then, you know, he would be able to do the additions.

Yeah. I mean, I you can. You just need a permit. Okay. Have you applied for a permit?

We have not applied for a permit yet. I believe we, since then has, taken up with a contractor to try to figure out what are the best ways to, you know, deal with this, but we, do plan on applying for a permit.

What's the city's recommendation?

The city suggests the city is asking for additional thirty days which would be 06/20/2026 for them to come in compliance. If they do not come in compliance then the city is axing $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved.

Is thirty days enough time for you?

We would like to ask if we can have sixty days additional to the thirty.

I spoke to the I spoke

to the supervisor, and he's comfortable with the sixty days, but not ninety. Yeah.

I'll give you sixty but you do have to move on this. Okay?

I understand. Would that be starting today or

We'll give you a date certain. Somebody give me sixty days from now.

08/19/2026.

Right now that's not that's ninety days.

Sixty days or not ninety?

Sixty days. Hold hold on one second.

July 20.

July 20? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna I'm gonna give you till July 20. I'm gonna give you till July 20.

July 20? Yeah. Alright. I understand. Thank you.

In case 26000658, I make the following findings of fact and law, if I notice this official, found the property in violation of two point four point one three b. Construction without a permit, respondent has until 07/20/2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue. Good luck. Please let the code officer know your progress.

A question. So with the first step you said to get in compliance, would that be getting the permit? Or would that be, you know, is that completion like every requirement that you may or may have for us, we would have to have it all done by July 20.

I think he's asking work versus permit compliance could mean different things and deaf can talk to you about it could be getting a permit for the addition as is or moving the addition however you bring in the compliance but it's just to get the permit if there's time after that so staff can explain that to

you yeah

and you might want

to talk to them thank

you case number 3 code 26000671 the property owner is rainberry woods homeowners association inc the registered agent is bro chadro and levine p a the property address is 551 Northwest 47 Avenue and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean Baptiste good afternoon Jean Baptiste Chantel code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach this property 551 Northwest 47th Avenue was issued a notice of violation on 04/10/2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular male on 04/28/2026. In addition both the property and city hall was posted on 04/29/2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had contact with property owner via phone.

This property was cited for 7.8.3 for maintenance of building as well as 100.05 mosquito prevention. As of 05/21/2026 the property has not come into compliance. I have 13 photographs of this property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. It's not pretty. Exhibit one is showing the pool area and the pool deck of Rainberry Woods.

Exhibit one photo was taken on 04/10/2026. Exhibit two is a second photo taken from the sidewalk on 04/10/2026 showing debris, dirt. And exhibit three is a zoomed in photo showing dirty water, unsanitary water inside the pool and debris. Exhibit four is showing a photo of the pool house in need and pressure cleaned and painting. Photos taken 04/10/2026.

Exhibit five is the affidavit of posting and mailing which was on 04/29/2026. Exhibit six is the affidavit of posting on 04/29/2026. Exhibit seven is the affidavit of non compliance as of May 2026. On May 13 took another photo of the property, the house, the pool deck house, not in compliance. This photo was taken on 05/13/2026.

Exhibit nine is the second photo taken of the pool area, have not been pressure cleaned or painted on 05/13/2026. Exhibit 10 is another photo taken from the sidewalk on 05/13/2026. Exhibit 11 shows photo taken from the sidewalk on 05/21/2026. The pool deck area was painted. Exhibit 12, the pool area, the water has not been drained, it has not been painted or cleaned from the inside of the pool.

You can see in exhibit 12 taken on 05/21/2026. Exhibit 13 is a zoom in photo showing there's water inside the pool right now and as well as debris. These are my 13 photos that show us into evidence.

Sir, tell me your name please.

Michael Antonovich. I work for Grant Property Management and I'm the property manager of this community. We do have people on-site right now completing

Hold on one second. Promise I'll let you tell me what you want to tell me. But first, I just do you have any objections to these photographs? No. Alright. Without objection, so admit it. Does the city have anything else?

Not at this time.

Alright. Go ahead, sir.

We've we've got people on-site that are taking care of it. They're working. They've been working all week this week. The issue with the pool having water in it, unfortunately, there's no power, so they can't actually pump it out. But they are working on making resolution for that, And it should be done by the end of the week. The pool and the little kiddie pool. It's been a mess forever. I mean, it's been I mean, to be honest, it's been Looks like this for eight years. It's a disaster, that particular community, so we're trying. But at least it got painted, and the they did the the patio area.

But they will get to the pool as soon as they can figure out how to get power to the whatever they can do.

The city is the city is asking for an additional fourteen days, which will be 06/04/2026 for them to come into compliance if they do not come into compliance then the city is axing $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved.

Can I ask what do they have to finish, the pools?

What is outstanding at this point?

They have to remove the water out the pool, the debris, pressure clean it and paint all that area, the pool area as well. And then if you can also have them to get a solid safety pool cover to cover the pool completely so to prevent water when it rains to prevent water from going in the pool. Okay. But then it attracts mosquitoes.

Yeah. Yeah. So what are you saying about painting inside the pool?

Yes. Remove the debris, the water and you can paint the whole area to make it look presentable and then cover it to prevent water, rainwater from going inside because it's unsanitary.

So they

I'm just getting a handle on it. So they're going to paint the tiles?

They're going to paint it, pressure clean it, paint it, make sure it's clean and then cover cover it.

I don't know you have to paint it but you have to

clean it I guess. Painting.

What I suggest at this point you know

painting is going to be

a big project.

It's not. Have a roundtable discussion about compliance during the hearing if can we just say compliance and then he can get with staff so they can clarify. But it's actually required by the code.

I can see empty in the pool but I can't see painting

Okay.

The inside of the pool because

No. That's that's my recommendation.

What's that?

Special magistrate Wagner.

Alright. This is what I'm

gonna do.

I'm gonna give you thirty days. During that time, I'd recommend you talk to staff about exactly what you're gonna do on here. Yeah. But but, yeah, it's clearly well, it's merely unsanitary.

No. It's a total mess. I totally have no argument there.

Alright. Case 26000671 to make the findings a fact in life. I notice sufficient. I found the property in violation of seven point eight point three. Maintenance and 100.05 a mosquito prevention. I'm gonna give the respond at thirty days or till 06/20/2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $250 per day mission. Good luck. Okay.

Thank you. Case number four. Code 26000674 the property owner is pr borrower twenty seven LLC the registered agent is corporation service Company. The property address is 305 Southwest 7th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams. Good afternoon.

I've had the opportunity to speak to the council or representative for the property owner for this case and we've come to an agreement that the property if the special magistrate accepts they've agreed to the property is finding of a violation and they have sixty

days which is 07/20/2020

to come into compliance

or a $100 daily fine

or a $100 daily fine

sir can tell me your name please

sure Brad bucks

Mister Bucks, are you an attorney?

I am not.

What is your position with the respondent?

I am the community engagement manager for the company, Progress Residential.

And you're authorized to represent them here today?

Yes. I am. I do have power of attorney.

Okay. The city is representing to me that you've reached an agreement that the violation exists, and you have sixty days to bring into compliance or a fine of up to a $100 per day. Is that your understanding?

That is my understanding and willing to accept.

Okay. In case 26000674, I make the following findings in fact and live. Find notice sufficient upon the property in violation of list of code sections. Respondent has sixty days or until 07/20/2026 bring the property compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day may issue thank you for coming in sorry you had to wait thank you much

thank you case number five code 26000676 the property owner is rodrio n comacho the property address is 217 Southwest 7th Avenue and the code officer on the case is reggie

and the at of

000676. The

property report is was issued a notice of violation on 04/14/2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular male and posted to City Hall on 04/15/2026. Addition, the property was posted on 04/16/2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner.

This property was cited for work without permits. The property installed new windows without approved issued permits. As of 05/21/2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached eight photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional thirty days, which will be on 06/20/2026 for them to come into compliance.

If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. The property owner did apply for a permit on 04/22/2026, and they're just waiting for the the the structural department to review the the permit.

If you

can present the photographs.

Exhibit one taken 04/14/2026 shows the property installing the new windows. Exhibit two taken 04/14/2026 is a zoomed in photo of the window being installed. April 3 taking April exhibit three, taking 04/14/2026, shows a window that was removed from the property. Exhibit four, taking April 16 Exhibit five is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit six is my reinspection taken 05/18/2026 that shows the windows are still on the property.

Exhibit seven taken 05/18/2026 is a zoomed in photo of the window. And exhibit eight is a first affidavit of noncompliance.

Does anyone hear on behalf of the respondent? Seeing no one without objection, I'll accept the evidence of the photographs and documents. Officer, do you believe that thirty days is sufficient amount of time for them to obtain their building permit, mister?

Yes. Since they applied for the permit, and they only have one department they'd have to go through to get approved.

Alright. In case 26000676, I make the following findings of fact in the life line notice is sufficient to find the property in violation of 2.40.13 B, building without a permit. Windows installed without a permit. Respondent has until 06/20/2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of a $100 per day mission.

Thank you. Case number six. Code 26000692. Property owner is Strong Island Real Estate Holdings LLC the registered agent is Raquel Drecker Esquire the property address is 125 Southwest 30 13th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams.

Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 125 Southwest 13th Avenue, case number code 26000692. This property received a courtesy notice on 04/07/2026 for property number not posted on building. The property was given five days to comply with the violation.

An inspection was conducted on 04/13/2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violations was issued on 04/22/2026. Service was accomplished by a certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on 04/23/2026. In addition, the property was posted on 04/23/2026. An affidavit of posted and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case.

I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for the property, not having property number posted on building. As of 05/22/2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached seven photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city has acted for an additional seven days, which will be on 05/28/2026 for the for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. And for this violation, it came from the fire department. So they told our department that they want all homes to have the property number posted on the property, not just the mailbox.

This is for the public safety reason.

Yes. Exhibit one taken 04/07/2026 shows the front of the property without any numbers posted. Exhibit two taken 04/07/2026 is my courtesy notice posted on the property. Exhibit three taken 04/22/2026 was my a notice of violation posted on the property. Exhibit four taken '20 taken 04/23/2026 was the notice of violation.

Exhibit five is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit six was my reinspection taken 05/04/2026 that shows that the property number is still not on the property. Exhibit seven is my affidavit of noncompliance.

Is anyone living at this property?

No. It is a vacant property.

It doesn't look like anyone took down your notices.

Nope. Nobody stays there.

Did we mail them

to Yeah. We mailed it. Yes. Property listed on the property? It's a LLC. So it goes to the address for the LLC as well as the registered agent.

I have a wondering feeling whether this is gonna be one where they're gonna come back later and say, we didn't know.

Well, we've provided notice

in the form of

the settlement.

I I I agree that you've done what's legally required. Guess there's just no way to figure out who's actually responsible for this.

No. Because I wrote this property up multiple times since 2025, and never nobody never contacted me.

Do you think well, it's just putting numbers on the building. Right?

Yep. Yes.

Alright. Without objection, I'm gonna accept an evidence of the the photos submitted by the city. Case 26000692. Make the following findings a fact in the life. I notice it's sufficient on the property in violation of seven point one point five. The building needs numbers. I get to respond until 05/28/2026 to come in compliance for a fine of $50 per day mission.

Thank you. Case number 7. This is a non compliance case code 26000534 the property owner is md g banyan delray partners llc the registered agent is cogenci global inc. The property address is 10 North Swinton Avenue and the code officer on the case is Connor Lee.

Good afternoon, magistrate.

Did we get a wall?

On 02/05/2026, a special magistrate found that a violation for city code section four point five point one subsection e subsection nine subsections a plus b subsections one through six, maintenance of historic properties for case code 26000534 existed at the property 10 North Swinton Avenue in Delray Beach. The violation was for maintenance needed for the structures within the property. During the previous April 2006 or April 16 magistrate hearing, it was ruled the case would be reset for today's hearing, May 21, and that all previous orders shall remain in effect. On 05/13/2026, I conduct on 05/13/2026, I conducted a re inspection and observed the property owner had not obtained for a permit yet applied for one for the damaged wall on the south end of the property, but haven't completed any of the repairs or gotten issued the repair work has not been completed and the case is not in compliance. I have four new documents to submit into evidence and three from the previous case to present, and the city suggests to lien the accrued fine for the amount of $74,000 and continue the original order until in compliance.

And I would like to so this is one of the photographs taken January 27 used in the previous case. And then here's another one used taken March 9 used in the previous case, 2026, 03/09/2026. And then another one another angle of the wall for 03/09/2026. And then for exhibit one, here is the magistrate order from the last case, the April 16, and where it says it was reset for today's date. And then here is exhibit two.

This was taken on May 13 to show that the applicant had applied for permits and there were some responses that the applicant needed to give back to the city to continue the application process, which I saw today were actually submitted and then I believe I'm not really sure

where the permit, but

I saw today, all that like, literally today, all comments had been resolved. And then exhibit three, May 13. This was on 05/13/2026. Just just shows the wall still hasn't been repaired. And then another angle, excuse me, showing that the wall has not been repaired. And then that is I'd like to present these exhibits to evidence.

And so do wanna submit those into evidence? Yes. Sir, can you

state your name again, please? Steve Michael, Van In Group. I do accept these pictures as evidence.

And So admitted. So what's going on with the wall?

Well, first, I would ask that I would ask that you would consider removing all the fines because this this is really ridiculous, and it's a it's a travesty. Travesty. The day after the hearing, we we had a contractor come and submit permits, application for the wall. They've been going through a review process. I didn't know it was I mean, we have thirty days.

I didn't realize it was gonna take a month and a half to go through the review process for a wall that's going to be torn down and also a hedge in front of the wall that's going be ripped out in days but we did go through the permit application since the day after the hearing The approval was I think today. Not the last comment wasn't answered today, but the approval on the permit was today. And we will follow through and build the wall and put the hedge and rip it down immediately after when we're ready to start building. But I mean, what I really and we have complied a 100%

let me let me just roll back there is is what you're suggesting to me that the reason that it's taken this long is because the city has taken this long to approve it

100% yes. We we submitted an application to

And and I do have I'll let him finish. But we do have Michelle Hoyland here and she does need to be sworn in when the time comes her to testify just to note.

Go ahead mister Michael. Anything else you want to tell me?

Yes and you know originally we had a list of items that we were originally cited for most of those were incorrect We immediately corrected the remaining items with the exception of the wall, as I explained to the code enforcement officer at the time, that we are submitting our building permit application and demolition that week, which we did. So it wouldn't make sense because that's part of the application of the new permit. But I was then I was given and when I originally got the the the when I was originally cited, I was given three days to go to the hearing to correct it. So, I mean, if I had no time, obviously, which is really obscene because code enforcement's purpose is not to get me into a hearing, but keep me keep me or property owners compliant, but I had no time to be compliant. I had literally days.

So and I'm coming here every time, hiring a lawyer, but I think, you know, this is really ridiculous. We have complied. We've submitted the application. There was review. There was comments back and forth. We can we answered the comments. I mean, I've I've done everything I I had to do. And to ask for a lien on the property, which will definitely put me in default in my in my mortgage, is really it's it's it's an unconscionable.

Ms. Warren? Yes.

We do have information as to the status of the permit. If we can swear Ms. Whelan please.

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

I do. Thank you. Good afternoon. Could you please state your full name for the record?

Hello. I'm Michelle Hoyland, principal planner with Development Services Historic Preservation.

And how long have you known what this is?

Nine and a half years. Okay. You agree

with the

property and issue today living at 10 year old

Swinton Avenue?

Yes. And, specifically, we understand there were some issues with this. Is this property an historic district within the city?

So it is within the Old School Square Historic District and it is individually designated as a historic site on the local register of historic places.

So specifically for purposes of this wall, what is the status and since we were at the last year?

So hello. Good afternoon, mister Michaels. Hello. The property owner, we understand had reached out looking into if the wall could be demolished. I believe he reached out to the city manager's office and other folks, and we advised that it's part of the site plan approval.

And it's an existing site feature which the code requires properties that have been approved for redevelopment per four fifty one e nine which is this violation I believe be maintained in the state that they were in. So his option was to either fix the wall or submit a site plan modification to remove the wall, and I believe it was last week that the permit was submitted. There was a lot of, you know, communications with different folks at the city, and it was at the, you know, a week ago that the permit was submitted. I've heard from my team that the permit is, we approved it last week, my team, meaning historic, and that the status of building permit BLDCDash013863Dash2026, says review complete. So I think at this point it's about to be issued

so just just for clarification when someone applies for a building permit in the city there are different departments that it has to go through correct yes and there is no issue with the historic district correct there no we approved no issue and this was submitted last week yes okay and it's currently an approval and has not been obtained yet or approved overall it has not been obtained I don't remember when the accident happened but it's been

a bit since the initial accident happened Yeah.

Thank you.

Let me ask you this. The respondent is essentially making the argument to me. If mischaracterize it, let me know. He's making the argument with me that he has been diligent in attempting to bring this into compliance and that the delay is the time process it's taken for the city to issue this. Is that your assessment of this?

No.

Can I say that the the permit was applied for in April? I have it I have it right on my phone. It was applied for actually the date

of Hold on one second. Can you walk me through the process here and why it's taking this long?

So in the interest of maintaining a positive relationship with property owner developer as we have thus far. I do think that there's been some confusion. We've had multiple meetings with mister Michaels and his team. They are moving through the process while somewhat slower than other applicants. They have a plot to get recorded.

They have major building permits to submit for the whole site that involves demolishing the Dunkin' Donuts building. There's a chicken and the egg issue with that where they cannot demolish that building until they have permits in hand. And I think they were trying to focus on those items, thinking maybe they would make more progress with that rather than focusing on the wall. The issue is the wall has been sitting for a long time and we have advised that it needs to be repaired. It wasn't until the code enforcement violation was issued that, you know, the action was had begun on the applicant's part property owner's part to fix the issue

and just for just for clarification purposes I'm not sure if you were here but were you aware that the last hearing on this case was I believe April 16 correct?

Yes.

And the permit wasn't applied for until according to our permitting screen April 24 correct?

So the start date isn't necessarily the application acceptance date so it's the date the applicant starts uploading documents into the system I would need to look here it says 05/13 status assigned so that's what I understand is the date that the permit was assigned I would have to go into the system and pull this myself I did not pull exhibit two I did not do that research but that doesn't necessarily the start date mean that that's the date the permit is ready to go they could submit some documents and not have plans I just don't know.

Can I clarify what one document I just have two more questions and for clarification purposes this has only been a couple of weeks correct?

Yeah I mean it like I said it could have started on 04/24. I don't know without pulling it myself. Mister Michael may, you know, under oath attest and contradict what I'm saying contradict what I'm saying. But, yeah, 04/24 was about a month ago

and is it typical in the the permitting process for communications to go back and forth between the property owner and staff

yes and you can see here on the comments structural approved. They had no comments. That was Mr. Patrick Lyons. Catherine with historic preservation approved. Or it says in review, but she approved it last week. There were no comments. You can see here there are two comments. One under landscaping about adding the hedge back in the front and providing the plan for such. And then engineering also had a comment here about damage to the right of way.

So during a building permit review, that's what four reviewers review it two had comments the applicant needs to respond to those comments so it's not like you submit a permit and you can get it the next day that happens a lot but when there's comments that's up to the applicant to address.

And I believe you previously stated to the special match trait that you do not believe that this was any delay or hindrance on behalf of staff correct? So the

system doesn't allow us to delay nor do the Florida statutes. So we're pretty tied to specific review timelines. So this was not permits don't sit, especially when I have if I were to pull all of the records I need here I could pull a library of records for you that shows you the full sequence there's no sitting of permits.

Thank you miss Heiland.

Mr. Michaels you can ask your questions.

Well first this was not applied for yesterday obviously it was applied for actually we submitted the permit the next day I know that for the contractor the start date is the twenty fourth a couple days later but we obviously was not submitted a day ago and we responded in a very timely manner to get a permit up. We didn't expect to go through landscaping and have to put hedges. We had to do new plans for landscape. We had to include landscape plans for the repair of the wall. And, again, that wall, the reason I asked to demo it is because it's going to be demoed anyways and then rebuilt rebuilt because the wall is gonna change in the new plan, in the building permit plan.

So it was a it was a reasonable request to just do that since it was about to be removed and then rebuilt. But I irregardless, I submitted a permit application, went through the process. I didn't delay it, and now I'm being told I have a lien I know I'm being asked to have a lien on my property of $75,000. It's it's incredible. I mean, I can't I can't even believe I'm here, but I can't even more so.

I can't believe I'm listening to this to this I mean, we're obviously working to be in compliance even though I don't agree that I that we should be doing this work, but we are. And, you know, I just don't understand. Everybody knows the application went in in April a month ago. Why am I here? I mean, I'm not I'm not delaying delaying it. It. I'm I'm not not slow walking the permit process and, you know, irregardless of the comment, we're not we're not slow in our building permit application. It's a lot of work.

Mister Michaels, when do you anticipate getting the wall repaired?

Is if once I get a permit approved, it'll take us a day. But I I don't but I want I wanna make sure. Last time I was, you know, I was giving thirty days, I believe that the permit would have taken a couple days because it was a repair of a little piece of the wall. I didn't think it was gonna go through structural engineering and landscape engineering because it's silly. So it's a waste of public, you know, resources, but it did. I can I can do the work quickly, but I can't I can't control the time it takes to go through the system? And and that's what's and I don't I'd rather not keep coming back here because it's really not it's it's it's it's

a it's a, you know, it's a

lot of work to come back and hire attorneys every time for this issue that we have been working to be in compliance as hard as we could.

I would just like to clarify one thing. The last time we were here it was for a noncompliance hearing and it wasn't corrected. Right? There were other issues that were corrected. This is a long standing violation but this wasn't corrected then here we are again thirty days later and it's still not outstanding so would object to any more time and we would ask for the lien and to find that the property is still out of compliance and continue the fines

well technically, I didn't give him any more time. I just delayed the hearing. So Yeah. So the officer Lee, the this initially was back in February. Right? Yes. And so back in February, there were there my recollection was there were a number of things that were in violation at that time. Right? Yes. Alright. And so this went before I I think what did I give? Thirty days back then? Wait. I have that initial order.

I think

the I believe it was

I mean, I I presume you're calculating you're calculating the fine here based on that initial thirty day. Right?

Yeah. So yeah. And then the reinspection was done March 9. And so, yes, it was thirty days.

And so you calculated out the fine of 74,000 based basically, a thousand dollars a day running since then. Right?

Yes.

When did when did the respondent comply with everything except for the wall? I

would say March 9. That was the only comment left on the reinspection, that the wall was the only thing left to be corrected for the property to come to compliance.

So everything else was done on time, essentially, except for the wall?

Yes. Based on the reinspection notes. It it yes.

There should be a copy

Alright. This is what I'm gonna do in this case since I don't really wanna keep coming back here to talk about this. So I'm gonna

on one second. We can get the clerk, madam clerk. He's announcing the order.

Thanks. Alright. I'm

gonna find that the violation still exists since it does, and I'm gonna assess a fine in the amount of $200 per day beginning from March 7 until when was the permit submitted? April 24. Is that correct?

That's what it says there.

Till April 24. I'm gonna stay the fine from April 24 until June 20. Actually, you know, let me make it June 27. We're gonna stay the fine during that time period since you've got the thing submitted. Hopefully, you'll get it fixed.

If it's not completed by June 27, the fine will continue at $200 a day from that point until it's complete until it's in compliance. And that'll be my order. And once it's in compliance if you want to come back and argue for a reduction of that you have the right to do that but that's what I'm gonna do at this point.

Just just for clarification I want to make sure we have the numbers and the dates correct. Based on my calculation of the dates I believe you're you ordered that the property you reduce the fine to $200 and for a period of March 7 to April 24 which is forty eight days at a total of $9,600 you're staying the fines after that day and then you gave him to what was the date to come into compliance

June 27

June 27 or the $200

continues until the property comes

okay Thank you. And no lien. I don't I don't believe you addressed that part.

If you want I mean I'll I can there's two things I can do. I could lien it today. I could lien it in the future. I could give you time to pay it so it doesn't lien.

I can just tell you if you lien the property, I will be in default of my my construction loan, which is really why I'm trying

to make I'll tell you what I will do. What is our last meeting in June?

06/18.

I'll give you till 06/18 to pay the outstanding fine. If you do no lien, if it's not paid by 06/18, it'll be lien.

But could I come back to mitigate it or no

once your property is in compliance you can ask for a reduction but I doubt you're gonna be able to do that in

time to do that but you can give it a

shot thank you thank you

thank you

so Matt I just wait a second just so this makes sense can we I believe you said June 27 for compliance or June 18 to pay the fine. For the lien.

The outstanding fine of $9,600 if it's not

paid by June 18 we will lien it at that

It does but it would kind of make sense to have them together the dates.

I know but the hearing date I mean I guess we could push it to the first hearing date in August.

July which would be

the second?

July 2. Let's keep it at the eighteenth because I'm not sure.

No. I'm here on the second. No.

You're not here on the second.

No. I'm not here on

the second.

Okay. Not here on Alright.

We'll keep it at the eighteenth.

Thank you.

So June 18 it is.

That's a Thursday. Yeah. No. I'm not here on

the seventh. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Alright. Sorry. That was complicated. Yeah.

Yeah. Could we can we just have it at both June 18? And I know it's a week earlier, but it's only May 21 that was still given.

Mister Michaels, do you think you can get the the the wall fixed by the eighteenth? That way we can do it all once.

The permit will be approved by, like, Tuesday? Okay. Yeah. I do. Alright.

We'll make everything June 18.

Okay. Thank you. Just for clarity on

the course. I feel you that's a thank fair

you. You case number eight code 26000536 the property owner is icon development holdings to LLC the registered agent is icon Equity Group LLC the property address is 27 South Swinton Avenue and the code officer on the case is Connelly.

Good afternoon on 02/05/2026, a special magistrate found that violation for city code section four point five point one subsection e subsection nine subsections a plus subsections b subsections one through six, maintenance of historic properties for case code 26000534 existed on a property 27 South Swinton Avenue. The violation noted that required maintenance was needed throughout property and including securing the structures within the parcel. The property was given thirty days to come into compliance or receive a daily fine of $1,000 per day until meeting compliance requirements. A board order reinspection was conducted on 03/09/2026, and the property was deemed to still be in violation. On 04/16/2026, I conducted a property walk through with property representative along with Clean and Safe admin, Henry Thompson, where we identified specified deficiencies noted within the violation description and provided by historic staff.

On 04/20/2026, the property was serviced with the certified first class mailing, and the notice was posted to the property and city hall on 04/27/2026. An affidavit posting is attached to the case evidence. On 05/13/2026, a magistrate order inspection was conducted, and it was observed that the property owner had not completed all necessary repairs to come into compliance. As of today, 05/21/2026, the case is still not in compliance. I have 24 new photos to submit or new documents to submit into evidence and 16 documents from the previous case to present during this hearing.

So if you can quickly

go through the previous hearing just to refresh. If you recall, special master, this is the one with four different properties.

I

remember. Remember. Yeah. If you just quickly go through.

Okay. So this is exhibit one. Here is the special magistrate order dated for 02/05/2026. And then exhibit two, this is the noncompliance affidavit completed by officer James Easley on 03/09/2026. And then on April 27, here is the posting photo for this hearing.

And oh, and that was on 04/27/2026. Here is exhibit four. This is the posting affidavit dated 04/27/2026. And then here for May 13, this is when I conducted a reinspection after meeting with the property representative just to see if any changes had been made. And you can see that some there there were efforts to repair, this hole here and then this one right here.

And then the graffiti had been painted over, but it is still there there are some things still missing from the doors and then the the boarding up of the windows as well. There's specific requirements for historic properties. And then here's another one of the building. As you can see, work has been done, and these were all taken May 13. Here is another building on the property, and this shows that the hole in the roof had been parked over.

And then some of the boards have been put up for some of the windows. And then some of the holes for the structures have been covered, but some are still showing. And then just some more the boarded of up property. And then you can see there's a hole in the front of the structure right here. Oops.

Wrong way. And then just a a couple little maintenance things on the still little hole right here could invite pests in and just not meeting the requirements required for historic properties and the maintenance requirements. And then here's another photo of the tarp on the roof covering the hole. And then that is all. I would like to submit these 24 exhibits for evidence. Okay.

Sir, would you like to make your appearance?

Yes. Francisco Escalante for the court appointed receiver, Warren Weiser, and the lender, s c h twenty seven LLC.

Can you spell your last name, sir?

E s c a l a n t e.

And you were appointed by the court to represent?

I am the attorney for the court appointed receiver, Warren Weiser, who's been appointed by manage the property and sell the property. To basically maintain and sell

the property.

Okay. Do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to submit in evidence?

I have no objections.

That objection is so admitted. Does the city have anything further to present?

Yes. We have miss Michelle

Hello again.

Hello again.

Good afternoon.

Could you please state

your your full name for the record and tell us how you were employed with the city?

Michelle Hoyland, principal planner with the development services

how long have you been employed with the city nine and a half years and are you familiar with the property located at 27 South Swinton Avenue yes and specifically regarding this property we're here for a noncompliance. Correct? Correct. And can you just tell us a little bit about the meetings that have occurred with the property owner and email correspondence to advise them of what's outstanding so

not to give too long of a history but this property has been in the approval process with a valid certified approved set of plans since 2011 That approval continues to be Can

it stay in approval for that long?

Thanks to, I believe it was Governor Krist who put the legislative process in place this project has survived on those executive orders so state of emergency occurs hurricane Zika virus COVID virus

typically yes I guess right

yeah applicants can extend their project that is now limited to a max of four year tolling time so this does have a drop dead date I believe in 2027. So the project has

So there is a plan.

There is a plan. It's been through two property owners. ICON is the most recent that we worked with. And I do think they diligently did try to move the project through the approval process. But it sounds like there's something happening with ownership.

We were alerted to the conditions on-site and did a site inspection. There were evidence of people. I don't want to go through the whole thing we did in the first meeting. I recall. People living here, windows broken, the roof damaged a lot of other things so we're very familiar with it we're waiting to see what happens with the site we have been receiving phone calls from interested parties who are interested in demolishing.

When you say by waiting, you're waiting for the owners of the property to decide how they're gonna move forward with it?

To submit a building permit for the development approval, yeah.

Okay. I'm sorry.

Go ahead. So specifically, let's you know as you stated earlier we had a previous hearing where they were found in violation and corrections need to be made correct

yes

and miss Lee advised the special magistrate that certain things had been done

he did do an inspection to my understanding and perhaps noted that some items were complete asked for my team's input, and upon our review, there are items that are not meeting the requirements of LDR section four point five point one e nine, which is maintenance of historic structures, which is why we're back here.

And just to clarify I believe you said there was some tarping and some boarding right which may preclude trespassers as an issue that you stated earlier and an issue that was an initial violation but as far as maintenance of historic property have they been advised of what actually needed to be done to bring the property into compliance

yes so our initial meeting with the applicants pardon me very first time we met was February 24 at least that was the first meeting I was in it was a virtual meeting a tie I don't remember his last name my apologies Frank was in this meeting

I was in that meeting, yes.

Warren Wiser, the receiver was in the meeting. And during that meeting the request from the team, we're calling it the receivership team, was what is it approved for, what are the steps to move it forward, which we did discuss. But we also advised the team that there was an ongoing look at the property beginning in January of the condition. And we told them about the code enforcement violation at that time, that it needed to be addressed. We went over the maintenance requirements in the code and how repairs actually have to be made, not that the site could be just boarded up and that there were procedures that they wanted to board windows, but there were other things that needed to be addressed.

My team has met with the different members of the receivership team either at City Hall via front counter visits or have had additional phone calls with them. And then we've also stayed in touch with code enforcement on the status of the property as we are getting question from the community as to what's happening with the site, its condition.

On or about and there have also been email correspondence either from you or from your supervisor in development services. Correct? Yes. And in those email was indicated that certain glass or color painting colors or tarps were insufficient?

Yes. And we could look at a few the pictures which were taken here on May 13.

Okay so let's do that if you if you wouldn't mind just you don't have to do every photo but just go through the photos and Identify the issues and where this has not been brought into compliance with the LDR section that you noted. Mhmm. And even boarding.

You can

go back to Here

you go.

Yeah. Is there one before that?

No. It's just the old

Those are

the old photos. Gotcha.

Talked about the new photos. This is just the if you can just go through that. I think that's just identifying the property.

I'm gonna skip this. I don't see major issue. It looks like a piece of plywood was screwed over or nailed over this hole here. The other concern was this door. There were no doorknobs and the door was not secured. I think that they they have screwed that in perhaps. I think I had maybe had heard from mister Lee. Here, initially, some of the initial pictures we saw on-site visit was that the wood was installed on the inside of the windows, which if it's raining, that's not gonna protect the interior of the structure. So then they put wood on the outside of the windows. This is not a recognized approach for the maintenance requirements for historic structures.

They need to actually repair the windows. The Jollyssey windows in this door here are still missing and or open. So rain is going to continue to enter the building. Same same photo here that we've already looked at from a distance. Again, this is the front, a different jealousy window where the glass is completely missing.

This is a problem. It looks like the hole in the back corner, you can see a piece of plywood was screwed over that. Technically, the siding should be repaired. I I think given the circumstance, a picture like that with the plywood, that that could be deemed acceptable. But there also are requirements for how you board a structure. If they're going to take the approach of boarding windows, which here they've boarded some, partially others. If that window where you could see the glass poking through the top, if that window is damaged and it rains, the rain is going to seep in. Also here there's a tarp on the roof. This is not a solution. The requirement for maintenance doesn't allow for the roof to be tarped.

That could be done in the interim while they're waiting to have a permit approved so that no further damage occurs. But the roof itself needs to actually be repaired.

And for clarification, no building permits have been submitted.

Not to my knowledge. Same thing with the

So even for the repairs that have been done, they weren't done under permit?

No. These weren't these don't, I think, qualify as repairs. This is the same issue here that the windows that are missing on the bottom, rain could seep in, damaging the interior of the structure. Gable, they should be putting you know, they could put a two by four in here and repair this where the gables are the gable ends or the roof eave ends are open. Here at the bottom, it's a piece of plywood I think, with two or three screws in it that's blocking the crawl space where all the beer bottles and cans were.

So, I mean, that could be deemed acceptable. This is rotten siding. This has to be repaired. You can't screw a piece of plywood over this. The intent of the maintenance code is to not let a property further degrade to the point where it ends up in demolition by neglect, which we did express the concern with this to the applicant.

Because the code says if you end up in demolition by neglect, and there have been previous code cases, and there have, this isn't the only one, that the historic preservation board can remove your ability to redevelop the site for five years. It's serious. These these code regulations that were adopted. So these repairs are showing evidence of damage and decay. I don't know how far that goes.

I don't know if there's termites happening. It also discusses termites maintenance code so we're just asking that the property owner go through the site and address actual repairs not a band aid solution that is not what the intent of four five one e nine is

and thank thank you miss Horland

the

only other thing is I just want to clarify that these things happen and the city is open to working with the property owner. Correct?

I'm gonna say yes. As long as we're not I hope so. An adversarial role here because there have been some emails saying we're stalling. There's no stall on our part. We did have a different code officer to begin with, which we're not going to go through the details of where he's at right now. But the project shifted. Mister Lee picked up, moved quickly to do his inspection, communicating with staff. We're happy to have another meeting with the applicant to walk them through the process of what should happen next. We would love to see the property come into compliance and have further protections moving forward.

And you have been on emails where some of these things that you actually just explained have already been explained as far back as 04/07/2026 correct?

So that's writing, but the first time we talked about it was February 24 in a meeting with the receivership team. So yes.

Thank you, miss Hoyland.

Mister Escalante. Can you identify,

miss Hoyland, an email where you specifically listed the items that needed to be maintained or repaired?

So some of those emails

Or your team.

Yes. There's one here from April 7 where my supervisor, direct supervisor, Amy Alvarez, sent you the info. This was after me coordinating with her and she sent it to you. I've also coordinated with mister Lee and the code enforcement team, but this was April 7.

And and I my understanding, those those items were addressed. After April 7, my client met met with mister Lee. They walked the property. The items that mister Lee identified were four items. They were all addressed. And since April 16, we, the receiver team, has has reached out April to mister Lee, has reached out to the assistant city attorney and your office for a list of items that you consider to be deficient. And we hold on a second. And we have been attempting to just have a site visit with all the interested parties involved. The receiver team will be there. Someone from historic and someone from code can be there.

And we can go through all the items and and deal with them. And the issue that we're having is that we're not getting a clear in writing list of the items that need to be addressed. The the and and just so everyone's clear, this property, the owner of the property is in foreclosure. There is a foreclosure judgment has been issued. The court, the circuit court of Broward County Palm Beach County, I'm sorry, has appointed the receiver, Warren Weiser, to manage, maintain the property, and attempt to sell the property.

And that's all his his the order the receivership order provides. He is supposed to basically do temporary, maintain the property, and sell it. He's been attempting to sell it. Maybe that's why you're getting some calls because they're marketing the property out there. That's not us. We're not talking about that. Our goal is to bring someone to the city, a partner that they can work with, that they can develop the property in a way consistent with historic and code and the city. That's all we're trying to do. We're going through that process right now. We have had several emails with mister, you know, mister Lee.

We have reached out to miss Hoyland. I've had conversations with Lawanda. Everybody at the city has been very, helpful. But when it comes to this last part, what exactly are the items? You know, sometimes code enforcement says, well, they've been taken care of, but it's up to historic. And then, you know, it it it it goes in a circle. You know, the last time we spoke to your team, it was an issue with the bees. There there there was an issue with nesting bees on the property. We immediately took care of the issue. We got a licensed bee beekeeper who went out to the property and took out all the bees, and and and they're gone.

At one point, there was we had to find a certificate of boarding in order to do these you know, the boarding process. My client came to the to the city. He went asked for what where's the application for a boarding certificate. No one knew anything about a boarding certificate. I personally called development services and requested for an application.

What's the process to get a boarding certificate to board up these windows? Nothing you know, no one knew anything about it. The the the other issue, just just sort of as an aside, the notice is incorrect. The receiver was appointed at the end of January. The most of these items precede the receiver with the prior with the actual the owner who was basically they're gone. They're from New Jersey, and they haven't paid their loan, and they're the property is being foreclosed on. The notice is in the title of s e h no. No. I'm sorry. The notice is in the name on the notice is one fifty Inlet Way, PH LLC.

Has nothing to do with this property. This has nothing to do with this property. The receiver did not find out about this notice until the neighbor who's next door saw posted and took a picture and sent it over to the receiver team. That's one. The wrong party was on the notice.

So I don't think that, you know, with respect, that you can have a lien when when there's been no when there hasn't been any notice. We have also not been provided with a written compliant compliance list of what the issues are. This is the first I hear miss Hoyland, you know, went through the pictures and identified the the siding issue. We'll take care of it. I mean, we're we're we wanna work with you.

I'm sorry?

No. No. Nothing. I I just can I Who

is Icahn Development Holdings? Is that the previous owner?

That's the previous owner. That's the owner. That he's technically, that is the current owner of the property. The receiver was appointed and if if you I'd like to

and and technically the

city have to notice the

correct owner

of record

that and that's what I was just about to say we have we are responsible for noticing the owner of record on the property appraiser website and that's who the city noticed we provided courtesy notices to the receivership team once we were, you know, informed that this is the receiver. There was also a random issue with some title change with the clerk's office that they were trying to correct as well but the city has always provided notice to whoever the proper party was on the property appraiser website as well as physically posting so we've met our posting requirements.

What's the effect of a on an existing city lien? Is the city a party to this suit?

No but the the foreclosure action has basically been stayed with the appointment of the receiver. The receiver is his mandate from the circuit court is to maintain the property, sell the property. I have a memorandum for you if you want to see it so I could

Show the city attorney first please.

Is this the it should be in your packet. Is this the document that you provided? Yeah. I provided we provided it. There's I'll just

I just want you to see the order appointing the receiver. The order specifically says that there's that the receiver is not liable for any action prior to assumption of of of the receivership, and that's per Florida statute as well. We request that no lien be entered. Obviously, a lien would have an effect on on on the sales process. We we've showed substantial compliance, and we've been diligent with the city.

I mean, there's been many, many emails back and forth, and we're trying to we're trying to work with Connor and and and and historic, and legal. We're just trying to find out just at a specific list of what we need to do. That's within the receivers mandate of maintaining the property.

So I I will add that, you know, we have provided previous lists as miss Escalante said. We've been emailing back and forth. We've we've had multiple we've had so many hands on deck from the city to try to provide them with what they need. Recently, I know that even the director of community services office has had her staff try to reach out so we can at least try to schedule a meeting. I know that there might be some scheduling conflicts or issues, but the city has always maintained that is willing to have that meeting.

So, you know, we where the city is fine with having them sit down. But at this point, it's not in compliance and it's insufficient. And this looks like obvious patchwork and not in compliance with our maintenance requirements, especially for historic districts. So we would just ask that the lien be put put in place. And then if this does come into compliance, they're more than welcome to come back for a lien or fine reduction hearing.

Mister Escalante, are you arguing that I don't have the authority to issue a lien at this time?

That's not what I'm arguing.

I'm saying that Tell me what you're what what are you trying

to I'm tell saying that the receive the the the the gist of the maintenance obligations occurred prior to the receiver being appointed. Right. And per the receiver order, the receiver's only responsible for items basically after the receiver has been appointed. And that's also per Florida statute. So you can what I'm I am asking you to do is to take into account that we've been diligent in attempting to address the city's concerns, historic concerns, code enforcement concerns. What we're looking for is a meeting at the property, a point person that we can, you know, address and see what the issues are and address them.

And we have appointed a point we have appointed a a point person and we have stated that we will meet with them. So I'm not sure. Administratively, I don't believe that the special magistrate can direct the city on who to appoint for what and how to handle

I I can't do that. Mean, but I I mean, look. I it sounds like you need a meeting. I suspect the city is willing to give you one. I I I I wouldn't put that in an order, but I'm sure the city you'll go out to the property and walk in with them. Right? Correct.

Yeah. We have yes.

I get the the question in front of me today is what to do about the the the running fine on the property and whether I guess the city is asking me to to lien the property and the the amount of the running fine and to continue it. Right? Is that essentially what the city is asking me to do?

Yes.

I I guess what I'm confused about, mister Esfonte, is I I'm I'm looking at the order from the the circuit court. Alright. Is it your position that this order precludes the existing fines from being assessed against the I guess, I don't even know who's in I guess, the the receiver is in charge of the property. Right?

That's correct.

So is is it your position that this order precludes a a code enforcement magistrate from assessing an order that was initially against the property owner or against the property as it exists today?

My position is that per the court order and Florida statute, your honor can assess a lien or fines only for acts after the receiver took over the property, which was, I believe, the the receiver order was at at the end of January, January maybe January 21. The original the original notice that was to the original property owner was sometime for earlier January. It was prior it was prior to that. But what I am saying is that receiver does have a mandate. Okay?

The receiver for example, this is not but the receiver cannot replace the roof. He cannot he cannot take out permits. The receiver cannot develop this property. The receiver's mandate is just to maintain maintain it it and to sell it. He's been actively trying to sell the property, and he's actively been trying to sort of maintain the property as best he can to leave in the same condition that he found it in. I mean, he's he's gone above and beyond, to be honest with you. They've painted they've painted the structures. They've boarded up some windows. There were signs of trespass. Those have been cleaned up. There were issues with bees. There were some holes there that that that those have been, you know, boarded up.

What what would you have me do here?

Either continue the hearing or just find substantial compliance that we've complied, that we've been diligent.

Well, I'm not gonna find substantial compliance because I don't think that's accurate. Okay. I I I think the the weight of the testimony here is that there's still a fair amount of work that needs to be done. So I I I can't find that. I mean, I suppose I could continue the hearing, but that wouldn't necessarily that would just delay the the decision rather than rather than address it. I don't honestly, miss Warren, I'm not sure what the legal standing is here.

As far as whether or not mean, I I guess the question that, you know, if you have concerns about is, you know, I I we've noticed the property. The receiver took over for receivership. Is this the is the issue whether or not the initial property owner would be able to make those those corrections or file for the permit because the receivers duty as he stated is to maintain the property. So they're still responsible just as the property owner would have been to maintain

party to this violation.

So if they're then are they acting on behalf of the property owner? Because we're this is against the property owner. The receivership is just kind

of That I agree with you.

Right. Well, you understand what I'm saying? So it's I don't think that that means that we don't have jurisdiction or we can't proceed with the case. The question is, you know, what's their authorization? Does this completely take away the owner's responsibility for the property? I don't I don't necessarily agree with that because liens are against the property right and the owner not there or the land

they follow the land down the owner

correct not I don't believe a receivership takes over ownership because that was one of the issues with the court filing they had once the receiver or something I believe it went into place or something the clerk messed it up.

The clerk made a mistake and

put the rule. The ownership to the receivership team and then they had to correct or to someone else. I don't

know who it was. They changed the name of the owner for entities that have nothing to do with the receiver or this property. Just this Technically, as

I understand it, the Icahn Development Holding is still the owner of record.

They are the owner of record. However, the court has ordered that the receiver maintain the property and the receiver sell the property. And the receiver is going to sell the property via a court order. And that's been ordered by the court. So that that sale by statute will probably be free of any liens because that's what the statute the receivership statute provides. So if the entering a lien here, I mean

So if I enter a lien, what happens to that in status to your property? Does the did you is it your belief that the court order and the Florida statutes would not allow that lien to attach?

The lien's gonna attach to the but, again, I I I it it it's a great question. That's why I filed a record here. I I mean, we may have to go back to the circuit court and seek guidance from the circuit court at that point. I'm not sure. To be honest with you, I'm not sure. It's gonna take a title company when someone actually tries to buy the property to honestly, it that that's

always gives me fun ones to try and figure out.

That's what I

don't think what the receivership does is take away the owner's rights and responsibilities initially for the property. It's just for maintenance and to sell.

No. No. No. It does take the the the owner is is is out.

And I guess that's what Yeah. The owner's out.

The owner's out. The receiver basically steps steps into the shoes for the limited for the limited mandate to maintain and sell the property. Market and sell the property, which is what he's been doing. Look. I can't my suggestion would be to let's have a little bit more time. Give us let's have a meeting with with with code enforcement historic out there. Let's resolve these issues and

hopefully Alright. This is what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna I'm I'm gonna leave the underlying order alone. It's still gonna be operable. I'm gonna reset this hearing, the noncompliance hearing for June 18. And in the meantime, I'm gonna ask that, the city give some direction to the respondent about what they need to comply with. So, I mean, that doesn't change that I still have to roll on the rolling fine, but at least in the meantime, maybe you can try and bring this thing into compliance. And and I'm gonna ask maybe both sides come prepared with exactly what I'm allowed to do in light of this court order. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

I have a question, magistrate.

Just reset it, that's all you have to

put in there.

Continue daily signs. Yeah,

nothing changes the underlying order.

Okay, thank you.

So basically the, yeah.

Thank you. Case number 9Code 26000640 the property owner is power group of companies corps the property address is 240 Northwest 8th Avenue and the code officer on the case is reggie williams

good afternoon This case was originally found to be a maintenance of building and landscape maintenance violation on 03/25/2026 for unsecured structures, overgrown landscape, and loose trash. On 04/16/2026, the ruling was to come into compliance on or before 04/23/2026 or pay a daily fine of a $100. On April 14 I mean, on 04/24/2026, a board order inspection was conducted, and it was observed that the violation still existed. On 04/29/2026, I posted a noncompliance hearing notice at the property. On 04/29/2026, noncompliance hearing notice was mailed first class certified mail and posted at City Hall.

As of 05/21/2026, the fine remains outstanding. I have six new photos introduced as evidence and three previously showed photos from the initial hearing. City suggests lien the property in the amount of $2,300 and continue daily fine of $100 per day. This is a old photo from 03/25/2026 from a different angle. 03/25/2026.

And this is in the back of the property in the alleyway of the unsc the window that's not there anymore on 03/25/2026. Exhibit one is the posting of noncompliance hearing notice. Exhibit two is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit three, taken 05/20/2026, is a photo of the landscape with the loose trash and overgrown grass. Exhibit four, taken 05/20/2026, is a different angle of the landscape. Exhibit five taken 05/20/2026? It's the back of the property with a window that's un that's unsecured. Exhibit six is a affidavit of noncompliance.

Is there any evidence that did anything at all?

No. The I spoke with a realtor that informed me that the property was going up for sale. So he actually called and asked he asked somebody to go out with him to look at the property. And he saw the noncompliance hearing notice, and he gave me a call, tried to figure out what needed to be done. And he informed me that he was gonna talk to the owners of the property that's trying to sell it to try to get them to fix it, but at this moment, they haven't done anything.

Can they introduce the other guy into evidence, please?

Yep. Without objection, so admitted. I assume you're looking for a lien and continue?

So lien and property amount of $2,300 and continue daily fine of a $100 per day.

Alright. In case 26000640, I make the following findings of Acton Life. I notice sufficient found property continues to be in violation of four point six point one six I as in I or l l one. Respondent is lien the lien is assessed in the amount of $2,300 and continues at a $100 a day until the property comes into compliance.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you.

I think that's it. Right? Alright. We're adjourned.