Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

I hereby call this meeting to order. This is a special magistrate hearing for the city of Delray Beach. Cases will be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda, unless otherwise noted. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed directly to the podium on my left-hand side over here. The city will introduce the case, present any evidence and testimony. You'll have an opportunity to review any of the Evidence presented by the city or any documents and any testimony of the city, and then you can ask any questions of the city's witnesses or present your own testimony and 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 evidence is taken under oath under the 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 that you can be sworn in.

Are we ready?

Anyone that's going to testify, might testify, possibility you might testify?

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.

All right, the consent agenda is hereby approved. The minutes from April 16, 2026 are approved and signed. So you can call the first case.

Magistrate, we'd actually like to call one case out of order. So under old business H, it's code case code 26-000534. It's a status update hearing. The respondent property owner has travel arrangements, so we'd like to call him first.

All right, let's proceed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Oh, sorry.

I'm sorry.

She has to announce the case.

This is all business case number six. Code 26000534. The property owner is MDG Banyan Delray Partners, LLC. The registered agent is Cogency Global Inc. The property address is 10 North Swinton Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee.

Go ahead. Good afternoon. On February 5th, 2026, special magistrate found that a violation for city code section 4.5.1, subsection E, subsection 9, subsection A, plus subsection B, subsections 1 through 6, maintenance of historic properties for case code 26000534 existed on the property 10 North Swinton Avenue, Delaware Beach, Florida. The violation is for maintenance needed for the structures within the property. During the previous May 21, 2006, magistrate hearing, it was ruled for a status hearing for today's hearing, June 18, 2026, to find if all violations had been corrected and if the accrued fine of the amount $9,600 had been paid by today's date. On June 7, 2026, I conducted a re-inspection within our permitting system and observed the property owner had obtained a wall repair permit and passed the final inspection. on June 5th, 2025. On June 16th, 2026, I was able to conduct a property reinspection and take compliance photos of the repaired wall and the vegetation that was required as well. As of today, June 18th, 2026, The violations had been complied, but the fine of $9,600 has not been paid. I have four new documents to submit into evidence and present during this hearing. And the city suggests we lien the accrued fine for $9,600 and continue the order until in compliance.

Just a few questions to be able to introduce the exhibits. The photographs you just presented, do you recognize what's shown in those photographs? Oh, yes. Here, sorry. Let me go through my exhibits.

So this is exhibit one. This is the magistrate order from the last magistrate case hearing on May 21, 2026, where it was ruled that the fine had been reduced and it needed to be paid by today. And this was taken on June 16th, 2026, Exhibit 3. This is of the repaired wall and showing that they had completed the repairs. And then this shows that they also put in the hedging requirements that were required by the city. And this is Exhibit 4, also taken on June 16th.

And so for Exhibits 3 and 4, you recognize what is shown in those photographs? sorry do you recognize what is shown in those photographs yes and you're familiar with what's portrayed in those photographs yes and the scene portrayed in those four photographs fairly and accurately represents the scene as you remember it on those times yes and for exhibit one and two which is the order that's a business record made at or near the time buying from information transmitted by a person with knowledge Yes. And it's kept in the regular course of business activities? Yes. And it's a regular practice of the city to make such records? Yes, sir. Your Honor, we move Exhibits 1 through 4 into the record.

Do you have any objections? No. So admitted. Is there anything further from the city?

No, Your Honor. Hi, Your Honor. I do have a check. Just for the record, can you just state your name? Steve Michael, I'm sorry, 909 McCleary, Delray Beach, Florida. So I do have a check for the $9,600. I had requested yesterday, submitted a request to reduce fine or a hearing to reduce fine. I didn't know exactly how I would do that with the same day, you know, today's date it was due and the hearing was today. I didn't know what the procedure was, if I should pay it first and then go to a hearing afterwards. to try to reduce that penalty, or do I... Well, I can't give you any advice on this.

I have tried somewhat judiciously to prevent the lien on the property through the way that I did this order. I can give you an additional seven days to get this paid. If you want to discuss production of fine issues, you can bring that directly to the city staff.

Okay. Well, I mean, then I might as well just pay it today because I need to get to a hearing, which won't be for a while, whatever the next hearing date is, to try to ask for a mitigation. So it really doesn't.

Yeah, that's something you probably should discuss with the city attorney.

Okay. Offline, I assume? Yes. Okay. All right.

You know, just two points on that. First, the court already did reduce the imposed daily fine of $1,000 to $200 when it imposed the $9,600 payment that was due today.

Just to save you time, I'm not going to consider a reduction of fine here. This is not a reduction of fine hearing. So I'm just not even going to consider it here.

But the court wanted to enter an order. We agree that the fine could be paid today if he's got the check, or if he's no order and just wants to go pay it, today's technically the deadline, so that would be fine, too.

It's up to you. I can give you some more. I'll give you another week if you want, but if you're just going to pay it now, you might as well just pay it, and we'll just save ourselves some time.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think it'll help to have any one week of time. I'll pay it today. And, well, I'm not going to ask you what the procedure is. Yeah, you can discuss it with the staff or the city attorney. Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm not going to enter an order today, so we're just going to conclude this matter.

Thank you. We're going to move back to magistrate, the regular magistrate violations to case number one.

Yes, please.

Thank you. Case number one, code 26, 000687. The property owner is Raman Muhammad and Day Monindra. The property address is 24 Northwest 8th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Connor Lee.

Good afternoon. On April 21, 2026, I created code case code 26000687 for the property 24 Northwest 8th Avenue for a business sign requiring an updated permit for changing the sign words. While working on the case, I was notified by city staff that the dumpster enclosure used by the property was built within the city right of way without proper approval. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on May 27, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on June 8, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to the case. I've been in contact with the business owner and the property owner. And this property was cited under code section 4.6.7, subsection F, subsection 1, signs requiring permits, which states all signs other than those exempted by subsection H or prohibited by subsection J must obtain a sign permit. A permit was obtained for the initial sign installation, but not the new signage design. The property was also cited under Code Section 102.01, Subsection A, Subsection B, Construction in Right-of-Way, which states a work permit shall be required for construction, excavation, or repair work in public right-of-ways, including bicycle paths, sidewalks, and for work on property owned by the city or dedicated to the city. As of June 8, 2026, the property has not come in compliance. I have 10 documents that I would like to submit into evidence. And the city is asking for 30 days, so July 19, 2026, for the property to obtain an approved permit for the business design or the updated design. sign design, and 60 days, August 18, 2026, to obtain any and all approved permits and relocate the dumpster within the property line or a $150 daily fine until in compliance.

Can you repeat those dates for me, please?

Yes. The 30 days is July 19, 2026, and then the 60 days is August 18, 2026.

And what did you want complied? What were you asking to have complied at each date?

Hmm.

The property to obtain an approved permit for the new business sign design and then to obtain any and all approved permits and or relocate the dumpster within the property line or $150 daily fine. So 4.6.7 for July 19th?

Yes, and 102.01. 102.01 for August 18th. Yes, sir. Council, did you want to put those photos in evidence?

Yes.

If you can walk us through the exhibits first. Yes. So this is exhibit one, taken on April 5th, 2026. This was actually taken while I had another case open for the property, but I closed that one out and reissued it under a new violation or ordinance. And as you can see, it says neighborhood, grocery, and food store. They were not approved initially for this sign design. Everything else has been permitted, just not the design. And this was taken April 5th, 2026. April 15, 2026, after I was notified about the dumpster enclosure, I conducted an inspection. This was just taken showing that the dumpster is where it's located on the property. Exhibit 3, April 15, 2026, a closer view of the dumpster area. And Exhibit 4, this document, this city document, and it was submitted for a fence permit on the property. And as you can see right here, the dumpster is illustrated within the design. But you can see right here, it asks to replace the fence around the dumpster and provide a setback. And a setback... make sure I have a setback is the mandatory minimum distance a building or structure must be kept from your property line street or natural features and so this is a before and as you can see right here in exhibit 5 this is a screenshot taken from Palm Beach property appraisers and the dumpster enclosure is a right here and it's shown to be outside of the property line within the city setback area and is unpermitted, not allowed. And this is a closer screenshot just to show the dumpster area right here. It is outside of the property line and within the setback area. This is the posting photo.

Can you go back to the previous photo? So is the concern that it's not on the property or that it's on the property but within the setback?

The concern is that it is within the city right of way. that there was no setback provided for the dumpster area. So it is unpermitted and unapproved.

And Your Honor, that's what section 102.01, which is a sign of violation, is construction in the right of way. So the issue is not a setback issue. It's that the improvement is within the right of way.

OK. And this is the posting photo taken on June 8, 2026. And as you can see, the sign is there as well. And that's exhibit 7. Exhibit 8, taken on June 8, 2026, just a re-inspection photo that the dumpster area is still there and to show where it is in relation to the property. And exhibit 9, a closer photo, just similar to one of the previous exhibits already submitted, June 8, 2026. And then this is the posting affidavit for June 8, 2026. And I would like to submit these documents into evidence.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

My name is Shihab Shuman. I'm the manager of this store.

I'm sorry, can you say your name again a little slower, please?

Shihab Shuman.

Can you spell that, please?

Sorry?

Can you spell your name, please?

S-H-E-H-A-B. S-U-M-O-N. Shihab Shuman. I'm the manager of this store.

And you're here on behalf of the property owners?

Yeah.

Do they know that you're here on their behalf?

Yeah, he's in the hospital. That's why he talked to Mr. Lee. Okay. Yeah. In the morning, he talked to Mr. Lee, and he told me this time he started in 1960.

Hold on one second before you get into that. Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents that the city would like to put?

No, everything is fine.

Everything is there. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Just one thing. I actually forgot one exhibit. I would like to just present it so we can submit all of them at once. This is Exhibit 11 showing the property had not come in compliance when I had done my re-compliance inspection on June 8, 2026. And those are all.

All right, I'm going to accept those into evidence as Exhibits 1 through 11. Does the city have anything further before I let the gentleman? Okay, go ahead, sir.

Tell me what you want me to do.

Okay. This German store, I think it's from the 1981, is there, from there. I don't know about that, but when I take this store, the 1st of February, I start my business in there. The sign is there. I just changed my name only. From Dweck's, he saw that one. When he talked to me about that, I tried to apply, but they want a lot of things from the property. Suppose the survey, what do you call, sign company, listed company, A lot of things. I talked to him about that, and I removed all my small open signs or other things. But I need some time to fix the drumster and my landlord, because he needs to survey the whole buildings.

How much time do you need?

I need at least three months for the drumster and my sign. Because the city of Delray Beach take a lot of time, any things. They take a lot of times.

What's the city's position on this 90-day request?

So the sign should not take 90 days. So I believe that's excessive. The 30 days should be reasonable. My concern with the dumpster remaining in the city right-of-way is that if something happens to the dumpster or somebody injures himself on the dumpster, it is within the city right-of-way. They could remove it sooner than 90 days, although they'll need to find alternative waste management options. So we would still request a 60 days, understanding that if the magistrate wanted to provide 90, but the sign really should be 30 days without an issue.

30 days is not enough because if you apply for the sign, first I have to apply for the CD, then I have to go to survey company, they have to take the time, I have to do the survey, then I apply again. There is a lot of things because I have experience with my, this store, I take in February, in my alcohol license, I take three months. In everywhere, I can take 15 days, but in Delray Beach, I take three months. I'm so sorry for that.

I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll give you 60 days for both. Both? I'll give you both for the dumpster and the sign. I'll give you 60 days for both.

Dumpster has a lot of work, sir.

Yeah, I understand the concern about the dumpster, but I also have to recognize the city's concern that it's sitting in the city's right-of-way. And so that becomes the city's responsibility if something should happen.

Then dumpster for 90 days.

I understand that, but that doesn't mean something couldn't happen, right? And then somebody's going to come to the city and say, why is there something in your right-of-way? Okay. With that said, I'm going to ask the city to try and expedite as best as they can to get your stuff done. But these things have to be addressed, and I'll give you 60 days to do so. 60 and 90, please. No, I'm going to give you 60 on both. In case 26000687, I'm going to make the following findings a fact in life. I notice it's official. I find the property in violation of the listed code sections. Hold on, sir. I'm going to give the respondent until August 18, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $150 per day in my issue. I'm going to ask you to talk to the city. They're going to do their best they can to get you expedited on these things, but you're going to have to move because these things do have to get done, okay?

Okay. Well, I have one.

Case number two. Code 26-000487. The property owner is Thomas Burke. The property address is 202 Southeast 4th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon, special magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson, co-supervisor with the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division.

For the record, I'm David Schmidt. I'm representing Mr. Burke. I spoke with Mr. Bennett prior to the hearing and the clerk. I have some video evidence, and I reviewed the magistrate's hearing procedure, and it didn't say anything about having to submit that ahead of time. And I've been told I can't use it today. And so I'd like to request postponement so that I can get the video and the PowerPoint presentation I have to the clerk so that we can use it as evidence for the hearing.

The city would object to a postponement. Mr. Schmidt didn't indicate that he made any efforts to reach out to the city to find out how he could present evidence or how that evidence needed to be provided beforehand. And this is another case in which it's landscaping, but there's improvements of some kind installed within the city right away, which the city would be liable if something would happen. And the evidence will show that there's overhead power lines associated with this landscaping. So we would object to the continuance. But if the court is inclined to grant the continuance, we'd ask it be set for a date certain for the next hearing, which is July 2nd.

Your Honor, if I may just. Yep. The procedures, which are online, I made the effort to take a look at those, and it said if you have evidence, you can present it at the day of the hearing. It doesn't say anything about electronic evidence have to being submitted ahead of time.

All right. I'm going to reset this for July 2nd. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Case number three. Code 26-000685. The property owner is Delray Place, LLC. The registered agent is Joseph Carosella. And the property address is 1801 South Federal Highway. And the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Good afternoon, special magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson, code supervisor for the city of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. I'm here regarding a site modification plan. On July 9, 2013, the city commission approved ordinance number 41-12, establishing a SAD which is a special activities district known as Delray's Place, located at 1811 South Federal Highway. As a part of its approval, the city commission requires the following. that any future requests modification to the site plan or development plan which does not seek to increase overall project size, total building area, or building height, and which modification otherwise remain within the confines of an approved building footprint as set forth on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B shall be processed as a site plan modification and reviewed either administratively or by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board in the sole discretion of the city's planner and zoning director and shall not be considered an amendment to this ordinance such as would otherwise require compliance with the public notice and hearing procedures for rezoning ordinance. In all other instance, any request modification shall be considered an amendment to this ordinance. As a part of the approval, the developer agreed to remove the building area occupied by a dentist office located in Unit G1 in order to create the required amount of opening space as reflected in the data table. On April 29, 2025, the city received an interior renovation permit application from AT&T for the portion of the site plan previously occupied by the dentist's office. This indicates that the building area was not removed as required. As a result, the current building area is not in conformity with the site plan approved in 2013, which constitute a violation of section 4.4.25, subsection 8, subsection 11, special activities district, and subsection 2.4.10, subsection A, subsection 1, site plan application of the city's land development regulation. Corrective action requires the property owner to submit amendment to the ordinance number 41-12, including a master plan development plan, a master development plan amendment. The amendment must update the overall site information, including the total building, flooring area, allocations of use, and amount of open space for consideration by the city commission. A magistrate violation was issued on April 12, 2026. The violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted to City Hall on May 7, 2026. Compliance date was required by June 8, 2026. The violation was posted to the property on May 6, 2026. On June 8, the application was submitted, however, not completed because the application was not paid for at the time of submittal. The application fee was paid on June 11, 2026, three days after the compliance date. A finding of fact that the property owner did not achieve compliance with the first phase of the corrective action required by the notice of violation on or before June 8th because the application fee was not paid until after the compliance date. The second phase of compliance requires obtaining approval of the site modification plan within 180 days which is by December 16, 2016, 2026, correction. If compliance is not achieved on or before December 16, 2026, a daily fine of $1,000 will be assessed against the property and will continue compliance until it's achieved. This exhibit one is the building. AT&T was taken on May 6, 2026. This is the building that was either supposed to be removed and or an amendment was supposed to be submitted to keep. Exhibit two is the posting of the violation, May 6, 2026. Exhibit 3 is just showing the address, unit 908, AT&T. That was taken on May 26. Exhibit 4 is the affidavit of posting from May 6, not May 26, May 6. And exhibit 5 is a noncompliance affidavit. I would like to submit these five photos for evidence.

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

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Christina Balenki of Miskel Backman here on behalf of the property owner.

Are you an attorney, ma'am?

Yes, I am.

And you represent the property owner?

Correct.

Delray Place LLC? Yes.

Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city would like to put in evidence?

I do not.

No objections, so admitted. Is there anything else further from the city?

No, just to clarify, well, I think it was clear in the presentation of testimony, but there was two deadlines within the notice. The first was to submit the application. Although the paperwork was submitted on the day of the deadline, no payment was made, so it would have, in theory, wasn't filed because nobody would have reviewed it. It wasn't going to be considered until the payment was made. So the city's seeking, in the order, reflection of a three-day violation for the filing of the application which we do agree was complete as of June 11th and then there's a secondary deadline which is not lapsed yet which is 180 days to complete the approval of the application that's the standard 180 days after the permit is filed right Yes, we feel like that's sufficient. Yes, that's the standard time to be sufficient to process the application. It should be.

All right.

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yes, if I may. So the way the city's system works for planning and zoning applications is we are required to submit all of the requisite application documentation through their online system now. And then it takes time for the city to process the invoice for the application fee. So had it been an older system where it was all paperwork, we could have submitted the check at the same time as our intake. But now, the way the city's process works, we submit all our application documentation, and it took the city two days to process that invoice so that my client could then pay it. As such, I respectfully request that we are not fined for those three days.

I mean, I don't think it was the city's intent to fine you for those three days anyway. I guess it is a fair question about whether or not you did everything you could have done at that time. Is there just no way to... I don't know. I don't submit myself, so... Right. Is there no way to pay at the time you submit the documents?

The old system, we would submit checks along with our application paperwork, and it's all physical, but the way...

electronic system which has been in place for about a year or so works as the city issues the invoice and then the payments made after that um i'd hear from the city on this issue essentially i believe the respondent is claiming that they paid as soon as they were allowed to pay by the city hold on special menstruate can you um submit the the document the evidence i already did yeah okay

special magistrate I have a question I'm not sure if Amy was sworn in already and I just wanted to confirm before she proceeds have you been sworn in thank you

All right. No, I've conferred with Ms. Alvarez, and that appears to be correct the way the system is set up at this point, that they submit and then the invoice is generated. So it wouldn't be seeking a technical violation created by the system. So, yes, the city is not requesting that a $3,000 fine be issued today due to the way the system is set up. We still would ask the magistrate to move forward with the fact that this is a violation. And because it has been pending longer than the actual notice has been issued, the parties have been aware that it needed to be fixed. And it took us bringing forth this action for it to be fixed, or at least to begin the process. So we'd still ask that an order be entered finding that they're in violation of the site plan applications and then imposing that 180-day deadline that's in the notice of violation hearing as well.

And yes, if I made two points on those facts there. So first of all, we've been working very closely with the city over the last year or so, I would say. My client believed they complied back in 2016. We had a level one site plan approved and my client's understanding was that this issue was resolved back in 2016. We have documentation from an approval letter Although through our public records request, we have not been able to find the certified copy of those plans. I'm not sure the city has either. That being said, my client is willing to process the SAD amendment and the minor site plan. Again, we've submitted our documentation. We're happy to continue working with the city through that process. Again, in my experience, processing site plans and rezoning applications, it does take longer than six months. I would request nine just to ensure we have sufficient time. I don't want my client being penalized if um you know the notice and the hearings are taking a little bit longer than that six month period especially when considering 30-day review periods i think is i i don't think ever in my experience i've had a site plan come back with zero comments we have to review uh the comments resubmit our application the city takes another 30 days and then there's all of the notice before getting to three hearings in this instance planning and zoning board and two before the city commission So while it could happen within six months, I think that's very aggressive. And so we would respectfully request nine months.

Council?

You know, some of the testimony you heard was that the site plan has already been created and they thought it had been submitted, approved and certified. So I'm not sure how much additional work there will be other than working on the rezoning for the SAD. So the city would would stand firm on the 180 day request.

I'll tell you what I'm willing to do. I'm going to stick with the 180 days, but I'll set a status hearing that either side can cancel. And if you think the delays are not your fault, come and explain it to me, and I'll consider an extension. But let's see if we can get it done within the 180 days.

That's very much appreciated. Thank you.

All right, case 26000685. I make the following findings a fact. In life, I notice a sufficient amount of violation exists on the property. I give the respondent 180 days to come into compliance. I'll let the city pick the date on the status hearing, but let's have a status hearing before the expiration of the 180 days to review. And if unchanged, a fine of up to $1,000 per day may issue.

Case number four, code 26-000-697. The property owner is PEG-265-LLC. The registered agent is the Private Exchange Group, Inc. And the property address is 610 North Ocean Boulevard. And the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

good afternoon special magistrate my name is latoya thompson code supervisor for the city of delray beach code enforcement division i'm here today regarding a demo and removal of structure and vegetation without a permit located at 610 north ocean boulevard delray beach on march 4th 2026 the code enforcement division was notified by development services that trees and vegetation has had been removed beyond the scope of approved permit at the property located at 610 North Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach. It was also reported that structures on the property had been demolished without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness correction and a building permit. Based on my investigation and review of internal systems with staff from the development services, I've confirmed that the removal of trees and vegetation exceeded the scope of the issue permit, which is a violation of section 4.6.19 subsection E of the city's land development regulation. tree removal of land clearing permit requirements. I also confirmed that the structure were demolished. The structures that were demolished is in violation of section 4.5.1, subsection F, subsection 1 through 5 of the land development regulation demolition, and also subsection 2.4.13, subsection B, building permit. This property is listed on the location registry of a historical place pursuant to subsection 4.5.1, subsection I, subsection 13 of the land development regulation as the historic Fontaine Fox House property. A magistrate violation was issued April 12th, correction, April 24th, 2026. The violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted at City Hall May 1st, 2026. Compliance date was required May 30th, 2026. Violation was posted at the property April 30th, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted June 3rd, 2026 via EPL. At the time, no application for a certificate of appropriateness was on file and no revisions to the tree permit was identified. I've been in contact with the property owners. The city suggests that they please submit a complete application for a certificate of appropriateness for review by the Historic Preservation Board on or before August 18, 2026. If a complete application is not submitted by August 18, 2026, a daily fine of $1,000 will be assessed against the property until compliance is received. Part two to this suggestion, in addition, the property owner shall apply for and obtain an approved permit by October 16th, 2026. Failure to achieve compliance by October 16th, 2026 will result in a daily fine of $1,000 to be assessed against the property until full compliance is achieved.

So you want them to do two things by August 16th, right?

August 18th, they shall submit a complete application for review, which is a certificate of appropriateness for review by the Historic Preservation Board on or before August 18th. Then the second part is to apply for a permit, obtain an approved permit by October 16th, 2026.

And Your Honor, I might provide some explanation for the demolition because it's historic. So normally you can obtain a demolition permit on its own independently with historic property under our code. In order to obtain the demolition permit, the property owner actually has to obtain the vertical permit for the replacement or improvements as well. So instead of there being a step a demolition where they could simply apply for one permit and that would be completed in this instance, they'll need to submit a complete application for the replacement or improvements that they intend to make on the property. And that has to be approved before they can actually obtain a demolition permit. That's why we have two different deadlines we're presenting to the court. One is, They need to submit the application by August 18, so that we're keeping them on track. And then the overall permit will have to be, well, the COA, or certificate of appropriateness, will have to be approved by the Historic Preservation Board. And then it will go to permitting. And they have to obtain the permit for that application in order to get the demolition permit, even though there's at least been a partial demolition of the improvements at this point.

Let me ask our, I assume you're here because you're going to help me here. They've already demolished it.

Have you been sworn in? No.

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

Thank you.

For our record, can you state your name and position?

Michelle Hoyland, principal planner, development services.

So if they've already demolished, I think this is a tree house?

There's actually two structures on the property, which Latoya has evidence to go through. But if you want me to expand on the process.

I guess the question I'm sort of leading to is, is what the city is suggesting here possible if the building has already been demolished?

we've had instances before where structures were demolished without board review we call them loosely after the fact demolitions there's actually been some that have come before you where i've testified as well they are required even with an after the fact demolition to go to the board and get approval of that through the coa process the main reason for that is the code requires that a replacement structure be designed and approved by the board when there's demolition. The whole point of this is so we don't demolish structures and have vacant lots in our historic districts.

So essentially what the city would be proving is the replacement, or the rest, I don't know if the restoration is possible, but something that the city believes is the equivalent of what was destroyed, right? Is that essentially it?

In some instances, the board will ask that the structure be rebuilt in the size and shape it was before. In other instances, they may approve a demolition with a completely different structure's design. But yes, you have to have a new replacement structure approved by the board when you go for demolition. There's also public notice requirements of everybody in a 500 foot radius. It's a process.

Is this enough time to accomplish it?

It's tight. But I think what we're asking for, Ms. Jackson. Thompson. Thompson. Sorry, Ms. Jackson.

Thompson.

Ms. Thompson. I'm sorry. 60 days is we want them to get an application in the system. And if they submit a good application, we could get that to the board in time. Um, if they feel like they need additional time as staff, I was asked that question. Um, the code enforcement team said they could come back and say, Hey, we're in process. We need a little bit more time from you, but to extend it beyond that, uh, 60 days doesn't encourage activity. So we want to get the application in so we can get them into compliance. And then after the board reviews, we're giving them an additional 60 days to get permitting. We think that's a reasonable request as well.

And I'm sorry, Council. I totally hijacked your presentation.

That's OK. I think we just go back now to Ms. Thompson and go through the exhibits, and I'll lay the foundation for their entry.

Exhibit one is a pictometry aerial photo from Papa of the property, zoomed out of the property before the demo of the vegetation, trees, and other structures. Exhibit two, another pictometer aerial close up of the property 610 North Ocean from Papa. Exhibit three is a photo of the guest house before it was demolished. This is a image that I retrieved from the city's P-Drive planning and zoning photo. This little area right here was removed. Exhibit four is a wide shot, also obtained from the P drive, from the city's P drive planning and zoning photo. Exhibit five is a photo of the treehouse, also obtained from the city's P drive. Exhibit six is a wide shot of the treehouse obtained from the city's P drive. Exhibit seven just displays vegetation that's around the property that was also removed. Exhibit eight is a photo from a Google map search prior to the removal of the vegetation and trees. Exhibit 9 is a pictometry from Papa of now a zoomed-out shot of the property and buildings removed and some vegetation. Exhibit 10 is a close-up shot. As you can see, there was building and structure removed and also vegetation. Exhibit 11 is where I believe the guest house was in this area has been removed and other structures. Exhibit 12 I took on April 10 of the property. The front was removed, like the vegetation was removed from the front, as you saw in the Google Maps picture. Exhibit 13, April 30, this is when the posting was done. Exhibit 14 is just a wide shot of the posting posted on the property, April 30. Exhibit 15 is just a shot of the property in live view of structures missing and vegetation. Exhibit 16 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 17 is a noncompliance affidavit. I would like to submit these into evidence, these 17 photos into evidence.

Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Without objection, so admitted. Have we had any conversations with the respondent?

So we heard from Ms. Diana Edwards by email. She sent an email to one of my team members, not to me directly, indicating what had occurred on the property, not that they were moving forward or coming to this meeting. So they're aware of the code enforcement violation and the actions that have happened. But I don't know. It's possible they may not be in the country right now.

Okay. Okay. Were both buildings removed, the treehouse and the adjoining building?

Yeah, so Latoya, would you mind please going to that zoomed in aerial towards the end of your presentation? That one right there. So you can see these almost look like columns or pilings of some kind. That's where the deck was. The deck was removed. Right to the left of the arrow, there was a section of building between those two buildings. That's what was removed right there. And then the tree house was to the right, a little bit more to your right. Keep going. It was right there. The tree house was non-contributing, aka non-historic, but it was a bone of contention over the years with the previous owner having sued the city over I guess he built it without permit and then wanted to keep it, and there was a lawsuit then.

I don't want to know about that.

Anyway, it was allowed. There was settlement agreements and things like that. So that is a newer structure, the treehouse. The building in the back where it's between the two buildings. That was a historical structure. That was historic, yes. It was originally constructed in the mid-century servants' quarters area.

And you would say that that is something that would require a historical permit? 100%.

Both. Actually, technically, both. Anytime you demolish a structure from a historic site, whether contributing or non-contributing, you still have to go through this process for the COA and the replacement structure. Yes, sir.

And to the best of your knowledge, no effort was made to do that?

100%. No.

Did they even do a conventional demolition permit? No.

The only permit they did obtain, there was a tree removal permit to remove, it might have been two, three, or four trees on the site. But in speaking with our senior landscape planner, who is also here, they went beyond the landscape tree removal permit. I think the owner has mentioned some level of a utility being involved, but I don't have any evidence supporting that.

Okay. All right. Case 26000697. I make the following findings a fact. I find notice is sufficient. I find the property in violation of the listed code sections, including tree removal, building permits, and demolition. I adopt the recommendation of the city and order the respondent to file the appropriate paperwork for a certificate of appropriateness application by August 18, 2026, or find the amount of $1,000 per day may issue. Order the respondent to obtain the required permits by October 16, 2026, or a fine of $1,000 per day may issue.

Thank you. We move on to noncompliance cases. Case number five, Code 26-000-537. The property owner is Vives Gomez, one, trust of Herlinda Maria Gomez, Carlos E. Vives Gomez, and Lucia V. Gomez are the trustees. Maria Gomez is the FAS. The property address is 15764 Southwest 8th Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Good morning, Special Magistrate. My name is Latoya Thompson, Code Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach Code Enforcement Division. Originally, this case was found in violation on March 19, 2026, for not obtaining approved permits for renovation and a built deck on the property. Given 60 days to come into compliance or $100 daily fine, Reinspection was done on May 23, 2026, where the property was found still out of compliance. On June 17, 2026, I conducted a reinspection prior to hearing, and the property is still out of compliance. I have five previous taken photos and three photos to submit as evidence. As of today, The accrued find is $2,900, and the city's just suggesting to lien the property in that amount and continue the $100 daily fine. This previous photo was taken from the website realtor.com of the deck that was built without a permit. These are all the renovations that was done. And these photos, these old photos, staircase and everywhere. Exhibit one is the posting of the noncompliance hearing on June 3rd. Exhibit two is the affidavit of posting. And exhibit three is the affidavit of noncompliance.

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

My name is Yeslin, last name Iglesias.

And what is your relation to the owner of the property?

Administrator for the trust.

Do you have any objections to the documents that the city would like to put in evidence?

No, sir.

No objections, so admitted. The floor is yours.

Yes, I've already been in communication with Latoya as well. Right now, we did submit the survey. I have a GC and an engineer working on it. He had corrections to do this morning. I called him earlier, so he's on it. He's working on it, but we are going to need more time.

I presume you're asking me to stay the fine? What's the city's position on that?

In the other cases, we've been providing 60 days to just file the paperwork, get the application in. This court granted them that 60 days, and it's been another 30 days since that 60 days ran. So we're at approximately 90 at this point. The application should should have been in it by now. So we're, the city is remaining, asking the court to follow through with its previous order, finding that $100 a day fine should begin after 60 days of noncompliance.

Mr. Glacius, I'm inclined to follow the city's recommendation here. I will tell you, once you bring it into compliance, there are methods here that you can request to reduce the fine. But at this point, it's gone on for a long time. It just needs to be corrected.

Yeah, I understand. I did speak to Ms. Latoya, and I even explained to her that, you know, I had a lot of GCs that wouldn't take the job, or engineers are like, no, that's like a puzzle. So it was a while that I had to call several engineers, several GCs to take the job.

Yeah, and your pictures do look very nice.

Thank you.

All right, in this case, 2600537, I'm going to lean to 2900 and continue until the property comes into compliance, and I hope that's soon. So good luck to you, ma'am.

Thank you.

I think that's it, right?

Yes.

Seeing no further business before us, we're adjourned.

Thank you. Ladies, we have an issue.