Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

I got the red light on.

There we go.

All right. Good afternoon. Welcome to the code enforcement hearings for July 2nd of 2026. My name is Gary Glassman and I am the special magistrate for today. I want to go over some what I call ground rules or guidelines as to how we're going to conduct these hearings before we start. So let me just do that. First of all, The cases will be taken in the order of the agenda, unless I'm asked otherwise, but that's how the cases will be taken. When I'm done doing these introductions, the clerk will swear everyone in who is going to testify. Even if you think, well, maybe yes, maybe no, please stand when she asks you to stand and get sworn in. This way we don't have to do it for each individual case. We can do it as a group. When your case is called, proceed to the podium and get ready to present your case. What will happen though is first the city will be presenting its case. And that may include some testimony, it may include some pictures, it may include some other evidence. The city gets its chance to go first because they have the burden to prove their case. After they've proven their case, you as the respondent in this proceeding has an opportunity to question the code enforcement officer and or you can simply go ahead and begin to present your case at that time. That's up to you. I can't advise you as to what to do. That's not my job. But you have that opportunity to question the code enforcement officer as they do have that opportunity to question you. Now, I will say this. Civility is a key thing. Direct your questions or your comments to me, questions to the other side, but direct any comments to me. And please, let's give each other the opportunities, the full opportunities to be heard. Let's not cross talk. Let's not argue. That's not going to help the situation. Once all of the evidence has been presented, then it is up to me to make a decision. And let me say this. There are some cases that may have come before the magistrate in past hearings. I know nothing about those cases. I don't prejudge anything. I don't read anything. So I don't know what's going to be presented. But I may have questions, especially if the case has been presented before. Please understand that I ask those questions because I need a fuller understanding of your case. It's not because I'm trying to be detrimental or I'm trying to be prejudiced or dishonest or something like that. It's simply that I need to know all the evidence that I can get so I can make a proper decision. So again, if your case has been here before, please understand that I know nothing about your case. Okay, this is what we call a quasi-judicial proceeding, meaning that the rules of evidence, the strict rules of evidence that lawyers must adhere to in a courtroom, we don't do. But that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. It doesn't mean that anything goes. If there are objections to the evidence, I will rule on it. But again, let's take it one step at a time. Let's not scream and yell.

Let's not talk over each other, and let's be civil with each other.

OK. All of the testimony, of course, is taken under oath, subject to penalties of perjury. So I caution you there as well. And at this point, I will ask the clerk to ask everyone who is going to testify to stand and be sworn in.

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

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written.

Consent is given.

Thank you.

We have the minutes, but I'm not quite sure, since I did not do the last hearing, that I can approve those minutes. Okay.

Thank you.

I don't know how I could do that, so we'll have to save that for when you have that magistrate back. Okay. Call the first case, please.

Case number one. Code 26-000-759. The code officer on the case is Chandler Ferguson. The property owner is Fairway Harbor, LLC. The registered agent is CT Corporation Systems. And the property address is 1755 South Federal Highway. And again, the code officer on this case is Chandler Ferguson.

Good afternoon. Could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record?

Jonathan Claus, C-L-A-U-S.

And where are you currently employed?

City of Delray Beach.

What is your current position?

Inspector 2, specifically mechanical.

So as a part of your duties and responsibilities as an inspector with the city, do you frequently also observe potential violations that occur in the city?

Yes.

And did you happen to go to the property located at 1755 South Federal Highway in Delray Beach, Florida?

Yes.

And was that on or about May 20th, 2026? What was the time frame?

June 10th, 2024.

And this is the 1755 car? Correct. And what or anything did you observe when you went to that property?

Actually, as I was driving by, I noticed a crane lifting an AC package unit onto the roof of the Chase Bank. I called into the office to see if there was any permits pulled for that address, and there was not. I then stopped and spoke with the technician for the AC company, asked if they had a permit, and he specified no. And then I came back and told the code officer.

Okay. Did you take any pictures?

I did.

I'm now showing you has been previously marked as City 163 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes.

What do you recognize it to be?

That's the AC company with their crane and one of the package units on the ground getting ready to be lifted onto the roof.

All right. And this is when you say that I believe that you asked them if they had a permit, correct?

Correct. That's the gentleman I spoke to right there.

All right. City 164. This is just another picture?

Just another picture, correct.

All right, City's Exhibit 5, what does this photograph depict?

That was more AC units they were getting ready to load onto the roof and install inside, because some of those are indoor units.

And this City's Exhibit 6?

That would be from the code.

At this time, the City would like to introduce photographs 3 through 5 into evidence.

Are there any objections?

I'm not sure if anyone's here.

Yeah, I don't think so either. I didn't see anyone, but I'd ask it anyway. Okay, no objections, and the pictures are admitted as evidence. I think that's Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, correct? 3, 4, and 5.

3, 4, and 5, okay. You stated earlier that once you observed this and received this information, you provided it to the code enforcement. Correct. Was that to proceed with any potential violations?

Correct. It was to their supervisors so they could send out a code enforcement officer. All right.

Thank you. At this time, does anyone like to call our next witness, Mr. Ferguson? You may proceed, Mr. Ferguson.

Good afternoon, Mr. President. Check. All right. Good morning, Special Magistrate. My name is Chandler Ferguson, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Derry Beach. Case number 26000759. This property, 1755 South Federal Highway, was issued a notice of violation on May 21, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on May 22, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on May 22, 2026. An affidavit of posting and an affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for installing an AC unit without obtaining an approved permit, 2.4.13 B building permits. As of June 26, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have four attached photographs of the property to the case in which I would like to introduce it to evidence.

Proceed.

The city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance, which would be on August 1, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

Could you please go through your exhibit, starting with exhibit one on the screen?

So this is the property appraisal. This is the sun biz.

And is the property appraiser just indicating who the property owner is?

Yes, this is the property owner. This is just letting you know who that is. And this is the registered agent, which is CT Corporation. All right.

And that is exhibit two. Here. It's OK. I got it. All right. Exhibit two. This is the division of corporations indicating who the registered agent is for purposes of service, correct?

Correct.

All right. So we're going to skip over to today's exhibit six.

And this is the posting in which I posted the notice of violation on May 22.

City's Exhibit 7.

And this is the affidavit of posting, of mailing.

City's Exhibit 8.

And this is the first affidavit of non-compliance.

So you did this after the compliance date to just confirm? Yes, yes.

After I checked the permits, yes, it was not approved.

Okay, at this time, the city would like to introduce City's Exhibits 1, 2, and 6 through 8. I have 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8.

six seven eight yeah one two um no objection i would assume since nobody's here they will be admitted into evidence thank you any other testimony that you have none from the city okay again the respondent apparently not here um fairway harvard's llc Okay. The recommendation is, I believe you said, come to compliance by August 1st?

August 1st, yes, 2026.

Or $100 a day? Yes. Okay. That will be the decision of the magistrate. Thank you. All right. Let's take the next case, please.

Thank you. Case number two, code 26, 000760. The property owner is Delray Corporate Center, LLC. The registered agent is Levi Realty Advisors, LLC. Josh Levy is the registered agent. The property address is 2875 South Congress Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Chandler Lee. I'm so sorry, is Chandler Ferguson.

Good afternoon. Could you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record?

Yes. Jonathan Claus, C-L-A-U-S. Are you currently employed with the City of Delaware Beach?

Yes. What is your current position?

Inspector 2, specifically Mechanical.

And as part of your duties and responsibilities, while you're inspecting, do you see any potential violations? Do you inquire and notify code enforcement?

Yes.

And did you happen to visit the property located at 2875 South Congress Avenue?

Yes.

When did you visit that property and what, if anything, did you notice?

it was during a inspection for an ac unit on suite a on april 6 2026 when i was up there for that unit which is an end unit i noticed a few other units that were not installed per code which led me to see that they were newer looking they were shiny upon inspection of the manufacturer's date they were all new units and no permits have been pulled on the rest of the building since 2017.

Okay, so you checked city records to confirm whether or not any permits had been pulled or not for the new or ACs that you noticed? Okay. And what did you do after you noticed that?

I came and told the code enforcement supervisor.

All right, so you reported it for a potential violation? Yes. All right. Thank you. And did you take photographs?

I did.

So now showing you has been previously marked as Cities Exhibit 3 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes.

And what do you recognize it to be?

That's a three-ton coastal star unit for Sweet Sea.

And is that one of the units that you indicated that you observed and checked all the markings on it?

Correct. And I do have a picture there.

All right. Yes. So Cities Exhibit 4, this is the closer.

Yes.

So what does this depict?

That shows the tonnage of the unit, and then on the serial number, it has a 23C19, which says it's the 19th week of 2023 that it was manufactured. And since there was no permit since 2017, I knew that it was done without a permit.

Okay, thank you. Cities Exhibit 5?

That's the same unit, just from the front.

Cities Exhibit 6 looks like the same unit.

That's the same picture.

All right. At this time, the city would like to introduce Cities Exhibits 3 through 6 into evidence.

Any objections? No. Then Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6 are admitted into evidence.

And after you provided this information to the Code Enforcement Department, did that conclude your involvement with this matter?

No, I was contacted by Code Enforcement when they... Posted the permit and went back after talking with whole air. It was another sweep. They are sweet D Who thought the unit was theirs, but it was not?

Do you have any questions of this witness so far I

Not at this time, Your Honor, although we may wish to follow up just as the presentation develops, particularly when it comes to our presentation.

Please stay there, sir, in case they have some other questions for you. Then we'll proceed with the city's case.

Yes. At this time, I'd like to call our Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Ferguson.

Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Chandler Ferguson, Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Derry Beach. Case number 26000760. This property 2875 South Congress Ave was issued a notice of violation on May 22nd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on May 22nd, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on May 22nd, 2026. An affidavit of postage an affidavit of non-compliance is attached in the case i have been in contact with the property owner this property was cited for installing ac units without without obtaining an approved permit 2.4.13b as of june 26 2026 the property has not come into compliance i have attached six photographs of the property to the case which i would like to introduce into evidence okay so let's talk about cities exhibit one what is this exhibit All right, so this is the property appraisal. Pretty much letting you know who the property owner is and the location.

Okay, thank you. Cities Exhibit 2?

This is the sum biz, letting you know the registered agent and all the information and the mailing address.

Okay, and that's for purposes of additional service? Correct. All right, so are you familiar with Cities Exhibit 4? Were these provided to you, correct? Yes, yes, these were. Cities Exhibit 7, what is this?

This was the posting of the day that I posted the notice of violation.

And that was on May 22nd, 2026? Yes. Okay. Cities Exhibit 8?

That was for another property.

Oh, so this isn't relevant? No. Okay, sorry about that. Cities Exhibit 9?

This is the posting in Mellon. This is pretty much the affidavit of posting in Mellon.

Cities Exhibit 10?

This is the affidavit of noncompliance.

right so we have just make sure we have all the correct photographs cities exhibits one two seven eight no seven so one two seven nine and ten we'd like to introduce those into evidence any objections no your honor okay then exhibits numbers one two seven nine and ten are admitted into evidence

Do you have any further testimony, sir, at this time?

No.

No. OK. Questions of this particular witness?

I will have questions of this witness, I believe. But first, I'd like to begin my presentation.

Well, that's kind of taking it out of order. But I'll allow it so long as we can stay on track. I don't want to get too far afield. You can start your presentation. And then if you have some questions, that'll be fine.

Thank you, Your Honor. So I'd like to first start off by providing my appearance. My name is Jacob Roth of Contarino Roth LLC. I represent Levy Real Estate Advisors with regard to this code compliance matter. And I'd like to start off just by acknowledging and stating the facts as far as we're aware of them, just because it's a little bit of a tricky situation, I think, due to some miscommunications along the way. So to start off, the AC units, as far as we're familiar with them for the property that were not permitted, were for Suites B, C, and G. Those units were installed since November of last year, and they were not permitted. We are currently in the process of submitting a permit for these units. We have every interest in being in compliance and taking care of that. We have no issue trying to do that. The issue that has happened so far is that when we originally received the notice, the notice, as far as I'm familiar with, was not provided directly to Levy Real Estate Advisors, but instead provided to the tenant in Suite D, which is a polar air conditioning services. And Suite D is not a unit for which there was an AC unit installed that was unpermitted. So they were the wrong tenant to be having a problem with the AC unit. It's instead suite C that we understand that to have been intended for. So we found out about the unpermitted unit when Polair brought it to our attention. And then we worked with Mr. Chandler to figure out which particular unit had the unpermitted AC unit installed. We ultimately determined with Mr. Chandler's help that it was suite C. And so we initiated a for a contractor, the contractor installed the unit, Coastal, to submit a permit to take care of that. Then in subsequent conversations between, and forgive me for mispronouncing it, is it Mr. Klaus or Klaus? Klaus. Mr. Klaus had subsequent conversations with Coastal, the contractor who had installed the units, and we discovered that Suites B and G, additionally had ac units that had been installed without permits once we acquired that info and confirmed it with the city which was as of june 24th uh so last week we the coastal initiated revising its permit application so that we get all three units included in the permit application that is now with levy real estate advisors to sign off on we'll be submitting that shortly The purpose of me providing this clarification is just to inform the city that we only really understood the units in question that had to be permitted about basically the end of June, and we're rapidly working to take care of this issue. So to the extent that there was not... effective notice about the particular AC unit in question being for Suites C. And then additionally, for Suites B and G, we ask that a violation not be considered to be found because we only warned about it belatedly. And our request is ultimately just 60 days for us to get the permit, take care of any outstanding issues coming into compliance, and then to revisit the issue if anything's out of compliance at that time.

Again, do you have any questions of the witness now, or are you satisfied with your presentation?

I'm satisfied with my presentation. If the issue of notice to Weeby Real Estate Advisors is further contested, I'd have some questions for Mr. Chandler about the notice, like where the notice was sent to. But if that's not fought on, I don't want to waste anyone's time by delving into it.

so okay i think that's more i can make a legal argument as far as notice goes um we don't have the image up here on the screen but upon review of the case this is kind of it's an interesting issue because it's really one massive like plot like plat right so there are multiple i guess like plots on this entire plat of the property. So, you know, the AC units were kind of spread out on top of the building, but in any event, Delray Corporate Center LLC owns the entire area and that's who we provided notice to. And Mr. Chandler placed it on one, while he placed it on one of the individual business units, it was posted overall generally on the property. We were able to clarify which suite the AC belonged to. But overall, it's unpermitted ACs on top of the entire building that is owned by Delray Corporate Center LLC. So our position is that notice was sufficient. Not only we posted generally on the property, we also mailed it to the property listed in the property appraiser website. As well, that's why we provided that information of who the registered agent was to prove that we also submitted additional notice to the registered agent in accordance with Chapter 162. Okay, thank you.

Let me just, let me ask a question. It seems that there are three units that were placed on the roof for suites. B, C, and G, is that correct, Mr. Ferguson? Correct. Okay. And none of them had permits when they were installed?

No. No approved permits.

Okay. And that both sides are working towards getting the permits for all three suites? Would that be accurate? Yes. Okay. And what is the city's recommendation or the city's concern? You heard the property owner say, or the property representative, that they need 60 days to get the permits.

Right. And we're giving them an additional 30 days, and that'll be to August 1st, 2026. And if not, it'll be $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

Okay.

Can you get them done by August 1st, 2026?

Yes.

Your Honor, I think that is possible. I just don't want to bet a risk of violation on 30 days as opposed to 60 days, which I'm very confident about by comparison. I just would prefer not to be back here in 30 days.

Making a pitch for a 30-day extension again when 60 days I believe it really could just be wrapped up and good and we wouldn't have to go through it again Inspector he advised me that they have already submitted an application for one of the units so sweet see which was The comfort star already has the permit issued Suites B and G will need to be they were submitted but there were some deficiencies and So they are working on those. Once we get the deficiencies fixed, it's out the door within three days.

So based on that, do you feel that 30 days is a reasonable amount of time?

More than sufficient. Okay.

All right, what I'm going to do is provide for the 30 days to get the permits based upon the testimony and the ability to get it done. If for some reason you can't, yes, I'm sorry to have to drag you back here again, but that's the way these things go. Or there will be a fine instituted of $100 per day. As to the notice, I don't have to rule on that since I'm ruling that all of the permits need to be done by August 1st. However, I will say that if I had to rule on it, I would rule in favor of the city on it because I do think the notice was sufficient. But I don't think I need to do that so long as we get this done. Fair enough?

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Okay. Then my ruling will be all the permits, I think one has already been established, but the other two permits need to be in place by August 1, 2026, where there will be a $100 a day fine instituted. Anything else?

May I ask, Mr. Glassman, that you actually find and make a finding that the property is out of compliance outside of the compliance date and that we did have proper notice. Okay. Thank you.

I'll do that because I don't really like to leave these things hanging either. Judges and magistrates don't like to decide things when they don't have to, but in that case, I will simply say that it's my finding that the property was out of compliance and that the notice was proper.

Thank you.

Let's leave it at that. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you. Case number three, Code 26. The property owner is Joan S. Goldberg. The property address is 4504 White Cedar Lane. And the property owner and the code officer on the case is Chandler Ferguson. Good afternoon.

Could you please state your full name and your last name for the record, sir?

Jonathan Claus, C-L-A-U-S.

Are you currently employed with the city of Delaware Beach?

Yes.

In what capacity?

Inspector 2, specifically mechanical.

And did you inspect or go onto the property located at 4504 White Cedar Lane, Dora Beach, Florida?

Yes.

And what, if anything, did you observe regarding an unpermitted AC unit on the property?

As I was driving by from a neighbor's inspection, I noticed that there was some AC ductwork spread across the driveway with a Cousins Air truck. Since they had previously done addition work, I knew that that was not included in the scope and that permit was previously closed out. I then researched and realized they had not pulled a permit for all new AC duct work, took pictures, i actually contacted cousins air prior to contacting code enforcement and subsequently i saw them again continuing work on the following day those days were november 4th 2025 and november 5th 2025. okay and you say that you took pictures correct yes

I'm now sharing what has been previously marked as Cities Exhibit 2 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this?

Yes, those were the pictures I took from the road.

And is that the Cousins business you referred to earlier? Correct, yes. On the truck? Cities Exhibit 3?

Yes, that's the picture I took with the address of the 4504.

All right. City's exhibit four?

Also showing that I was just driving by.

Okay.

Was not driving at the time.

Okay. Glad. City's exhibit five?

A picture taken from the truck showing the two trucks with the ductwork on the driveway.

Okay. And just for clarification, would that be in the center of the photograph with the individual with like a highlighter green type shirt?

Correct. That was one of the technicians. There were multiple technicians on site.

All right. At this time, the city would like to introduce city's exhibits two through five and

Is the respondent present? Okay, no objection then. Therefore, the exhibits two, three, and five will be admitted into evidence.

So after you notice those major observations on both of those states, what if anything did you do next?

I contacted Michael with Cousins Air because we do have a good working relationship. Anytime they have an inspection, he's the one who contacts me for a time and at arrival time so i let him know via text first i asked him where his permit was for that he stated that they didn't have one he didn't know anything about it and then there was a phone call that followed but the phone call was not necessarily in regards to this property he just said he would look into it okay and did you then provide this information over to the code enforcement department for further investigation yes okay thank you at this time the city would like to call mr ferguson

You may proceed.

Good afternoon, special magistrate. My name is Chandler Ferguson, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach, case number 26000761. This property, 4504 White Cedar Lane, was issued a notice of violation on May 22, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on May 26, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on May 28, 2026. An affidavit of posting and an affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for installing an AC unit without obtaining an approved permit 2.4.13b. As of June 23rd, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached four photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence.

Thank you. Let's start with exhibit one. What does this depict?

This is the property appraisal, and this is pretty much the property owner and their address, so we can mail them the mail, send them the mail.

Thank you. City's exhibit... Six.

This is showing the posting on May 28th when I posted the property and the notice of violation and the hearing notice.

City's Exhibit 7.

This was the affidavit of posting, which is posted on the 28th of May.

City's Exhibit 8.

And this was the affidavit of noncompliance.

So this is the affidavit that you do to confirm that the property was not.

Yes, it is.

At this time, the city would like to introduce City's Exhibit 1

Hearing no objection, they will be admitted into evidence. Thank you.

The city has no further testimony.

All right. Is there a recommendation?

Yes. The city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance, which will be on August 1st, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

I make a finding that the property owner was not and still is not in compliance, that they have until 30 days, August 1st, 2026, to come into compliance. If not, there will be a $100 a day fine.

And if you could make a finding that sufficient notice was provided.

I'm sorry?

If you can make a finding that sufficient notice of the hearing was provided to the property owner.

All right. I can do that. Sufficient notice. I'll find also that sufficient notice was provided to the property owner for the case. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Case number four, code 26, 000487. The property owner is Thomas J. Burke. The property address is 202 Southeast 4th Avenue. The code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson. Good afternoon. We're first going to start with Mr. David Glover.

Good afternoon, Mr. Glover. Could you please state your full name and last name and spell your last name for the record?

David Glover, G-L-O-V-E-R. And are you employed with the City of Durham Beach? Yes.

In what capacity?

I am the Senior Landscape Planner for the city.

And could you briefly explain what are your duties and responsibilities as a Senior Landscaper?

My duty is to advise different departments on different landscape regulations and also provide assessment and review for site plans and landscape plans.

Correct. So if someone were to come in and want to add any type of vegetation or trees on their property, that's something that you would review to see if that's suitable? yes okay and are you familiar with the property located at 202 southeast 4th avenue in delray beach florida yes did they come before the city for any type of site plan review or any type of review regarding landscaping uh so to answer that question uh to refer to what this pictures is portraying at that time they did not come into the city for a permit I'm now showing what's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 1 for identification purposes. What area in the city is this located in?

That's located in the city's right-of-way.

So this is the city's property, correct?

Yes.

And is that property adjacent to 202 Southeast 4th Avenue, Dollar Beach, Florida?

Yes.

And as a part of this property, how did this incident come about?

So this incident, from my knowledge, came up over a year ago back in, I believe, in February when this property was being constructed. I was contacted by the contractor at that time suggesting that the homeowner wanted to provide some type of landscape material in the driveway. At that time, we advised them that they had an approved landscape plan already at the time and that they would have to come in and supply the necessary paperwork and do a revision for Asking to put landscape in the right away. I Didn't hear anything from them after that the property was approved with the current approved landscape plan and The property was inspected and CO'd and closed out per the approved landscape plan. Around a few months later, I believe around in December, it was an engineer inspector in the area and noticed some landscaper attempting to put landscape within the right of way. At that time, they notified code enforcement. Code enforcement went out to the site made contact with the landscapers and asked them to cease and to contact the city and provide permits or get permits or find out what they needed to do. Code enforcement revisited the site maybe a day or two later and that's when we noticed that the site was in this state that you see now.

Okay, so let's break this down. You initially cited that they indeed had an approved landscape plan, correct?

Yes.

And to confirm, what we see here in these photographs, those trees, that was not in their approved landscaping plan?

No.

All right. So then... They were approved. They were sealed for that. Yes. And then later on, you say that you were advised by the engineering department as well as code enforcement that there had been, A, work done in the right-of-way without any approvals, correct? Correct. And a part of that work was that you were attempting to install trees, and they were told, you know, that that wasn't approved at that point.

Yes.

Correct? And then a few days later, you know... After another inspection, we found that they didn't stop. They continued to put the trees in the city's right-of-way, correct?

Correct.

So the work for what we're here for, we're here for basically approved work on the property, which included the trees that were there, correct?

Say that again?

We were here for doing the work in the city's right-of-way without a permit, which included the trees being installed.

Yes.

Without the proper approval or not even any type of modification to the landscaping plan.

Correct.

All right. So I'm now going to show you City's Exhibit 2. What does this picture depict?

This is at the time when they was installed in the landscape in the right-of-way.

So this is before it was complete? Yes. Correct. All right. And this is City's Exhibit 3 on December 12th. It's another angle?

Yes.

Okay. And after all of this, did you provide this information to the Code Enforcement Department or request that they proceed with the violation?

Yes.

And so fast forward from December 12th until now, has the city been attempting to work with the property owner to explain to them what they need to do to come into compliance?

Yes.

All right, before we, that's the testimony of this witness? Yes. Okay, before we proceed, identify yourself, please, and if you have questions of this witness.

Yes, thank you. My name's David Schmidt. I'm representing Mr. Burke, who's the property owner. I'm an attorney.

Okay, lucky you. Yes. All right, proceed.

All right, Mr. Glover, looking at, Exhibit 3, the tall trees that are depicted in that photo, what type of trees are those?

Coconut palms.

And are they permitted in single-family residential landscaping in the city?

And to some degree, or how you're wording that, I couldn't tell you. Yes or no. It would depend on our review and assessment of where they're located and how they're being used.

But are they permitted trees under the landscape code for single family residential?

They are permitted trees under 4.616 in a limited capacity due to the yellow leafing of them. And it gives me the authority under my review and assessment to limit them, allow them, or do not allow them.

Okay. And the smaller trees depicted in that picture, do you know what type of trees those are?

Yeah, those are Brazilian butyl leaves.

And are they allowed under the city code in single-family residential property?

Again, those trees are allowed, but it is under my jurisdiction to do a review and assessment of where they're located and how they're being used for me to say yes or no.

Okay. And you testified that The landscaping's been installed in the right-of-way, which is owned by the city. Who's supposed to maintain that right-of-way?

Under LDRs, it is stated that the adjacent property owner is supposed to maintain.

All right. And now are they required to install irrigation?

They're required to install sod and irrigation.

All right. And does the city prohibit parking in swales?

I'm not an expert to testify for that.

OK, so you don't know.

I'm not an expert to testify in that.

It doesn't matter if you're an expert or not. Do you know of your personal knowledge whether the city allows parking in swales? I am not an expert to testify in that.

OK, let's go on.

All right.

have no other questions for this witness your honor okay anything that you would like to add based on the questions that were asked of you sir sure now at this time the city would like to call miss thompson all right proceed you can go back through your photographs as well miss 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 work without permit located at 202 Southeast 4th Avenue, Delray Beach. On December 12th, 2025, code enforcement was informed by the engineering department regarding work performed within the city's right of way without a permit at 202 Southeast 4th Avenue, Delray Beach. On December 29th, 2026, Phil Cartwright, code administrator and I, investigated the property and observed coconut trees and bushes planted within the swale. It should be noted that the landscape company, at the time of observation, December 12, around December 12, was directed not to place the trees and other vegetation in the city's right-of-way. This constitutes as a violation of the City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations, Section 2.4.13, Subsection B, Building Permit. The original magistrate violation was issued on January 6, 2026, was mailed first class, certified mail, and posted to City Hall on January 13, 2026. The compliance was required by February 6, 2026. The validation was posted on the property January 14, 2026. February 19, A magistrate hearing was rescheduled for March 19, 2026. A magistrate violation was re-noticed on February 25, 2026. It was mailed first class certified mail and posted to City Hall on February 25, 2026. The violation was posted to the property on February 26, 2026. On March 13, 2026, I conducted a re-inspection of the property and observed the coconut trees and the bushes are still in the soil. Therefore, the property was still out of compliance. I've had had contact with the property owner's legal representation. During the magistrate hearing on March 19, 2026, both parties, the city of Delray Beach and the legal representative for the property owner, agreed to a 60-day continuance. A magistrate violation was reissued on May 20, 2026, was mailed first class certified mail, and posted to city hall on May 20, 2026. The violation was posted on the property on May 20, 2026. A re-inspection was conducted on May 27, 2026, and the property remains out of compliance. The case was originally scheduled for June 4, 2026 hearing. However, the property owner's legal representation requested the hearing be continued to June 18, 2026, as the property owner was unable to attend due to medical reasons. A magistrate violation was reissued on June 5, 2026. It was mailed first-class certified mail and posted to City Hall on June 8, 2026. The violation was posted on the property on June 5, During the special magistrate hearing on June 18, 2026, the property owner's attorney stated that he had video evidence to present. However, because the evidence was not submitted by the required deadline, he requested a continuance. The hearing continued to July 2, 2026. A magistrate notice violation was reissued On June 20th, 2026, male first class certified male and posted to City Hall June 22nd, 2026. The violation was posted on the property June 20th. Correction, it was male certified first class and posted to City Hall June 22, 2026. The violation was posted to the property June 20, 2026. As of today, the property remains out of compliance. I have several photos to submit into evidence. The city suggests that all unpermitted vegetation and trees be removed from the city's right-of-way, restored back to its original state within or by July 18, 2026, or a fine of $250 per day will be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved. The photo exhibits now that I will go through is just all those dates that I said.

So let's just go through the photos.

Let's just go through the photographs. So you can just go through the exhibits, state what the photographs were taken and what they depict.

Exhibit one is a photograph taken on December 12th of the vegetation that was not permitted, which are the trees and the coconut trees in the swale. Exhibit two is just another angle. As you can see, they planted, went ahead, after being told not to, still continue to plant vegetation in the swale. Exhibit 3 is just another photo of the vegetation being planted in the swell, taken on December 12th. Exhibit 4 is the complete of the vegetation in the swell, taken on December 29th. Exhibit 5 is just a close-up of the vegetation, taken on December 29th. Exhibit 6 is the posting of the property taken on January 14th. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 8 is a reposting taken on February 26th. Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 10 is the reinspection taken on March 12th. Property remains out of compliance. Exhibit 11 is an affidavit of noncompliance. Exhibit 12 is just the order stating the continuance. Exhibit 13 is a reposting taken on May 20th. Exhibit 14 is a reinspection taken on May 27th. Exhibit 15, the reposting, taken on June 5th. Exhibit 16 is a photo of the address, 202 Southeast 4th Avenue, taken on June 5th. Exhibit 17 is an affidavit of posting. Exhibit 18 is a reinspection, taken on June 5th. Exhibit 19 is an affidavit of noncompliance. Exhibit 20 is a reposting taken on June 20. Exhibit 21 is the address for the violator taken on June 20. Exhibit 22 is an affidavit of posting. Exhibit 23 is a re-inspection taken on June 20th. Exhibit 24 is an affidavit of noncompliance.

At this time, the city would like to introduce

No objection.

No objection. Okay. I was going to let you go one by one if you wanted, but that makes it much easier. Thank you, sir. Okay.

Does that conclude your testimony, Ms. Thompson? Yes, sir.

All right. Do you have any questions of Ms. Thompson, sir?

Yes. Ms. Thompson, you testified that on December 12th, I believe it was, that the landscaper was advised to stop. Do you know who... advise them to stop?

This information was given to me from my co-administrator that they spoke to the landscaper.

And do you know who they spoke to? The name of the person? Not quite sure. Okay. Do you know if the property owner has applied for a building permit for approval of the landscaping?

There was a, in the system, there was a permit. However, this is out of the scope of approval.

And why is that?

Because they didn't get approved to get the coconut trees and all the other, it was just regular side and irrigation.

Right, but the violation notice. says to either remove the landscaping or apply for a building permit. Do you know if the property owner applied for a building permit after the violation notice was issued?

Um. I know that there is one. I'm not sure what the dates on it was something applied for, but not for what they have in the right of way right now.

OK. All right. Well, we'll address that in our presentation. Thank you. I have no other questions for you. Mr.

Officer, do you have any other testimony you'd like to offer, given the questions that were asked of you?

No, that's it.

OK. Any other witnesses for the city? Okay. I haven't heard a recommendation from the city. Is there one? I did. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want me to repeat it?

Please, yeah. The city suggests that all unpermitted vegetation and trees be removed from the city's right-of-way and restored back to its original state within or by July 18, 2026, or a fine of $250 per day be assessed to the property until compliance is achieved.

Okay. Thank you. I didn't write that one down. Okay, any other witnesses? No, not at this time. All right, sir, you can make your presentation.

Okay, thank you. And I apologize, Your Honor, I don't normally do these with evidence, so I have prepared a PowerPoint presentation that contains our evidence, which has been uploaded.

That's fine.

Okay.

If I may, Your Honor, because I know I'll have some authentication that will need to be done for some of the photos.

If I could just go through this. Yeah, that's okay. We'll do the authentication before we try and submit it into evidence.

That's fine. Go ahead.

Yeah, I do, but I think it would flow a little better if I just have them testify. All right, so this is from the property appraiser's website. This is an aerial photo of the property.

I'm sorry to interrupt, sir, but are you going to mark each of these exhibits?

If I could do it as a composite exhibit for the PowerPoint presentation.

Okay, composite is fine.

Okay. All right. So this is public record. It's the aerial that's on the property appraisers website, the properties on the corner of Southeast Fourth Avenue and Southeast Second Street, the north or southwest corner, excuse me. This is the from the city zoning map. The property is that little RM in the middle of the property, right at the bottom of the purple. And it's sort of an island of RM. There's property across the street that's also RM. It's on the west side. This is the subject landscaping, which the city already showed you photos and testified about. And I testify I took this photo. That's my shadow at the bottom. This is also landscaping. I took this photo. This is information from the property appraiser's website. I don't believe the city had that, just confirming the zoning of the property. This is the permit records that the city has online. There was a building permit applied for on December 17th, five days after the city first contacted the property owner, and I'll have some testimony about that because there's comments and responses to comments. The application is still pending at this point. These are some photos I took. This is landscaping of adjoining property in the right.

Objection.

Yeah, and I don't know whether they were permitted or not, so I'd prefer not to get into neighbor's landscaping.

Well, I think it's relevant because it's in the swale, and there's some that is very similar to what my client has installed.

But again, I don't know if it was permitted or not, so therefore I'm not going to consider the neighbor's landscaping.

All right, then let me go through this. All right, this is the Swale area, and Mr. Burke took these photos, so they'll have to authenticate them. But immediately to the west of the property.

I mean, I know he's going to have someone.

May I ask a question? Well, okay. Is it about one of these pictures?

It is. I just want to know if that's on the property and what's the relevance of the view.

Let them go through these pictures, and then I'll let you make your objections all together, rather than go picture by picture. Thank you.

Okay. I can advise the magistrate that the pictures of the swales that I'm showing you, it's not our property. It's adjoining property to the west.

Okay. Same ruling as before, because I don't know whether those that landscaping was permitted or not, and

It's not regarding the landscaping, Your Honor. It's regarding the condition of the swales because the city allows parking on swales.

Okay. I've already made the decision I'm not going to consider neighboring property, so let's go forward. Let's just focus on this property. And tell me what I'm looking at here, please.

Well, again, these are photos of swales on adjoining property. Okay. This is the FPL guidance on installation of trees. I downloaded this off the city website. It makes recommendations for types of trees. It does not specifically prohibit different trees. And regarding maintenance of trees, which we consider to be an issue in this case. And then this is from the city code, the LDR section 4.6.16E6. Sorry about the print, but this is the provision that says coconut palms are permitted on single-family residential. It's one of the permitted trees under the city code. All right, and so that's what I have for those. I'd like to call Mr. Burke the property owner because, well, I have some testimony from him. Besides, I was going to have him authenticate the photos of the swale because he took those. But if I could have Mr. Burke come up, please.

Mr. Burke, you have been sworn in. You were part of the group swearing. Good. Thank you, sir. Okay.

You need to come over here. All right. Would you please state your name for the record? Thomas Burke. All right. And you own the property located at 2027.

I'm so sorry. I just want to confirm that he actually was sworn in. I know he came in after the fact.

I asked him, and he just said he was. Okay.

All right. And do you own the property at 202 Southeast 4th Avenue? I do. Okay. And did you have the subject landscaping installed? I did. Okay. What was the condition of the swale prior to the installation of the landscaping?

We had sodded it and been maintaining it, but cars had parked there and It was becoming rutted, and it was beginning to look like the photos you showed of all the other swales on the street. Decrepit and just awful mess. And people parking there until 3, 4 o'clock in the morning, Thursday, Friday, Saturday night, throwing beer cans, used condoms, just a nightmare. It was impossible to maintain, and it was deteriorating, and it was looking like all the derelict, blighted swales up and down the street.

Do you park any of your vehicles on that swale?

No, I do not.

Okay. Were you required to replace any of the sod in the swale after it was initially installed?

Yeah, I did.

Okay. And... Suffer any damage to the irrigation system. Yes. Okay. Did you have to have that repair? Yes Okay, and is that area posted for no parking? No All right, since we're not gonna get into the photos of the swale So, mr. Park just just a couple questions I

You stated that you had been maintaining that area, correct? The city is right away?

Yes.

And you had at one point had sod there? Yes. Correct. And you found that it had been problematic?

To maintain it.

To maintain it. Are you aware that there are other mechanisms within the city to try to prevent some of those issues without improperly planting trees, correct? Like buttons, right?

I'm sorry.

Buttons, like on the side of the road to prevent people from parking on the swale?

Okay.

So you're aware of that?

No. You're making me aware of it now.

Okay. And buttons are, they're like redone-shaped markers that are permitted to be placed on the side of the right-of-way to prohibit those or stop some of those things.

That's not going to stop anybody from parking there. I think we both know that.

But that wasn't my question.

Let's not get argumentative. Let's not get argumentative, please.

My question was that there are other mechanisms within the city to prevent these types of issues without improperly planting trees, correct?

If that's your opinion, I don't necessarily agree with you. I don't know what those mechanisms that you're describing are.

Okay. But you continue to proceed with the trees with an understanding that you didn't have the approval.

No. These statements are a little self-serving and a little out of context. The work was done in a period of two days, and the permit was applied for immediately by the landscaper. It was an innocent mistake. Was he wrong for not having a permit? Absolutely. Did he immediately attempt to remedy the situation and correct it? Absolutely true as well. So, you know, if you want a little history or background or context for this, you don't.

My question was, was the work done without the permit?

Apparently it was.

Okay. I have nothing further. Okay.

Is there any other presentation you would like to make, sir?

No other questions for Mr. Burke.

OK. Mr. Burke, you may be seated if you care to.

Yeah. I just want to say that we moved here in 2018. I lived in the Caspian Apartments across the street. chose this neighborhood to stay in, spent a fair amount of money developing the home that my wife and I built there, and wanted to create An environment where we would feel happy and comfortable. And we thought we did that with the landscaping that we initially did around the home with the wall and landscaping on both sides. However, we have that monolithic, giant, concrete AT&T building across the street. It's about 60 or 70 feet tall. Yeah. We thought that the vegetation that we planted would kind of screen or block a little bit from our property across the way to the AT&T building, but it didn't. And subsequently, we had a discussion with our landscaper and came up with a plan to – add those trees that would help screen the property across the street so we don't have to look at the giant blue AT&T sign. And also we had issues with, again, people parking there until all hours of the day and night, raising cane, and we thought it would be an improvement. So came up with a plan and, again, It was installed, admittedly, without benefit of a permit, but the landscaping company immediately submitted themselves to the process and sought a permit, which to date is still pending. It has not, to my knowledge, been denied, and I don't think I'm in violation of the... zoning ordinance that governs the vegetation that can be placed in the swell. Mr. Glover has admitted that all of these trees are permitted under the code, but he feels that he has the latitude or the discretion to arbitrarily deny the placement of those trees for whatever reason. I don't understand. It's a vast improvement around everything else that exists there If you look at this whale right behind me, it's hard packed. It's dust. It's dirt. It's rock. It's garbage. And it's not attractive. And all I wanted to do was maintain what I had already put in there and block the view of the AT&T building to the extent that I could. And that's all I'm trying to do. All my neighbors across the street have heavier vegetation than me and they have coconut palms and if you go down southeast third avenue to 231 southeast third avenue there's four palm trees in the swale with the wires overhead and the lights underneath and and nobody seems to care so i'm held to a different standard all right mr burke i understand and i want to rule on the objection i'm going to overrule it but mr burke

Confine yourself pretty much to your own property, sir. That's what I'm trying to focus on. I understand your neighbors. I understand what has been done. Let's just confine your remarks.

But I'm being held to a standard that doesn't apply to anybody else, Your Honor. I don't understand why I'm being treated differently than all the properties around me who have similar vegetation. or heavier vegetation. That's the problem I have here, that I'm being singled out and treated unfairly for something that doesn't apply to anybody else. That's not right.

I hear you, Mr. Burke. Anything you would like to question? Since he's testified, you certainly have the right to question. I do want to recall this. I don't have any questions for him. Okay. But I do have a lot of questions. Okay. Well, let me get through property owner's case first, and then we'll get to rebuttal. Is there anything further?

May I add one other thing, Your Honor, before I finish? Sure. We've tried consistently to work with the city to find a way to resolve this. I don't think I'm above the law, and I'm not attempting to be disrespectful or arrogant and say I don't have to follow the law because I know I do. We've suggested... maintenance agreement, insurance indemnification, which I imagine... Okay.

And also... Hold on, Mr. Parker. I'm going to sustain that objection. We're going too far beyond what I need to know to decide this case. Okay. Those discussions that you may have had, may continue to have with the city, different story. But right now, I just want to confine myself as best as possible to the...

The reason I brought it up, Your Honor, is because we received an email communication very recently about...

to my attorney where we had offered careful mr burke you don't maybe necessarily want to discuss conversations between you and your attorney no no no from the city oh okay i just wanted to advise you responding to okay yeah i i'm not going to hear about any settlement discussions because that again is not something that's within my authority any discussions you've had that's good with the city it's good to hear but right now i've got to focus on this violation

Okay. So our good faith attempts to resolve it and offer $10,000 cash to the city is not something that is germane here? It's not relevant?

It's not because the first thing I have to do is decide if there's a violation. Discussions that you may have had regarding settlement or offers that you have made may be taken into consideration later, but right now I have to decide if there's a violation and how we're going to proceed. Okay. All right.

Well, I know that my landscaper did file an application immediately upon being notified that he was required to do so. To my knowledge, that application has not been approved. formally denied let me ask you a question you're saying that he's your your landscaper has filed an application for a permit is that what you're saying yes yes that is correct and when was that filed uh immediately in middle of december when when this first happened okay When he was made aware that he needed to, he did so immediately.

All right. I don't want to prejudice you or cut you off in any way, but let's continue, because I do want to consider what's going on here. I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. But I don't want to shortchange you in any way, Mr. Burke, from being able to provide what I would call relevant testimony, which is testimony regarding the permit, which is why I just asked you what I did.

The permit is outstanding. The discussions that we've had with the city about the permit, they've offered different stories at different times.

I'm not going to the settlements that conversations that you've had with them.

Then I have nothing else, Your Honor. Okay.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate the things that you've said, and I appreciate you coming down here. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schmidt, do you have any other testimony or witnesses?

Yeah. I'd like to call John Taliento, please.

Okay.

in? Yes. Okay. Would you please state your name for the record?

John Taliento.

And are you affiliated with a company called Coastal Care Landscaping?

Yes.

And what is your position with that company?

The owner.

Okay. And did you install the subject landscaping? Yes. Okay. And were you... I mean, not me personally. Right. But your company installed it? Yes. And prior to the installation, were you aware that a permit was necessary?

No. No.

okay excuse me and when when did you become aware that a permit was necessary when we were told during the project all right and did you subsequently apply for a building permit yes all right and this is plan review details The report was generated January 29th, but do you see the December 17th, 2025 date in the left top? Yes. Okay. Is that on or about the date that you applied for the permit? Yes. All right. And what, if anything, was the city's response to the application?

There was an issue with... the verbiage in the proposal that we were going to remove the swale, which we did not do, and we amended the proposal and resubmitted it. All right.

And so these are comments from city staff? Yeah. All right. And did you respond to those comments? We did. Okay. And since you responded, have you had any further follow-up from the city about the status of the permit? No. Okay. Your Honor, Mr. Taliento took a video of the surrounding neighborhood with the landscaping. If you're not going to consider that, then I won't.

Yeah, no, I've already ruled on that. That's fine. I understand that there's other vegetation that's been put in on other properties, but I've got a rule on this property, what's been done here.

All right. Let me ask you about the coconut palms. Are they able to be maintained so that they don't grow up into the power lines that run along the swale? Yes. Okay. And have you been maintaining the trees?

Yes.

Okay. Do you have a maintenance agreement with Mr. Burke?

Yes.

Okay. And the other trees, the Brazilian beauty leaf, how tall will those grow?

They can grow, we maintain them at a height of 15 feet. Okay, and do you know the- Could they technically grow taller? Yes.

Okay, but they're being maintained.

They are being maintained. And, okay.

I have no other questions from him, your honor.

Ms. Warren, any questions?

Yes, I just have one question. Your company is the one who initially installed the landscaping, correct? No, ma'am. It wasn't your company? No, ma'am. So you're after the fact-

Yes.

International maintenance. So you have no knowledge regarding the installation and the initial... Lack of permit.

No, ma'am.

So your only testability is that you entered a maintenance degree after the fact?

We installed the landscape that's in question here. We did not install the initial landscape when the home was under construction.

Oh, that was my question. Did you install the landscaping that is in violation? Yes. Correct. And at some point during the installation, you were advised before it was actually completed that it wasn't approved, correct?

Correct.

And you continued?

Yes. Okay, I don't have anything.

How tall does the coconut palm get, in your opinion?

I mean, 25 feet? Maybe taller, maybe? But it can be maintained outside of the power line to where it's not impacting anything.

But to growth, you're saying that it could go grow the mature growth height of a coconut palm?

It could grow taller than 25 feet. I don't know the exact height that it could grow to, but it can grow tall.

And you're a registered landscaper in the city?

We are, yes.

So how many projects have you done within the city?

Hundreds.

And you're not familiar with the guidelines regarding...

There is no guideline regarding planting coconut palms.

So there's no guidelines regarding landscaping in the city of Dora Beach? Is that your testing?

There are guidelines.

Are there guidelines for permitting landscaping within the city?

In certain circumstances, yes, when homes are under construction. Not always when homes are finished.

Okay, so that's you. Okay.

I mean the home was not under construction.

I understand your answer.

Thank you.

Anything further, Mr. Schmidt?

No, sir.

Any other witnesses that you have to testify?

No. I would... I mean, I realize it was submitted as a composite exhibit, but with the exception of the photos and the PowerPoint about adjoining landscaping, I'd like to submit that.

If we can go through them, I just want to be clear. I know... You know, he did it as a composite, and there's a lot that you sustained on.

Well, I understand. As a composite, I will accept it with the exception that the pictures that show other properties will not be considered by me, in keeping with my earlier ruling.

Right, but I think he needs to identify what those are because, you know, there were so many different pictures that didn't have any markings on them, on home numbers. Thank you.

Your Honor, um, These first two are of the subject landscaping, and I took those. Any other photos relate to the swales or neighbor landscaping, and they're identified. So those would be excluded based on your ruling.

Yeah, and that's my ruling. My ruling is that the composite exhibit will be admitted, with the exception of those that have shown neighboring landscaping. All right. Any other testimony? I think you wanted to do some rebuttal.

Yeah, I just have a couple quick follow-up questions for Mr. Glover, who is our city's landscape architect. Mr. Glover, can you talk a little bit about the requirements under 4.6

Okay, so yes, 4.616 is our landscape regulations chapters. It's specifically at 4.616C1A. It talks about a landscape permit which shall be required for all work whose landscape improvements valuation is greater than $1,000. Section B, it says prior to upgrading landscaping on an existing site, a landscape plan shall be submitted with the following. And it states, you know, from one all the way down to like 15 of the different categories or requirements that I need. And that's showing power lines, right-of-ways. Tree evaluation, tree existing, location, and so on. Also, if you go down into 4.616D, it talks about tree selection adjacent within utility easement or so. It says, required perimeter landscape buffers often conceding with utility easement, careful selection of tree species essential to minimize conflicts as trees mature. Trees planted substantially to the fact data of this ordinance shall meet the following criteria. I know they mentioned about the FP&L right tree, right place. We have that stated in our ordinance and section 4.616 D4A, where the ultimate mature height and width of a tree to be planted should not exceed the available overhead growing space. Tree species shall be consistent with the recommendation in the most recent publication of Florida Power and Light Companies, plant the right tree in the right place. It also says trees should not be planted within 10 feet of any underground utilities, trees or overhead or trees should not have any invasive groups which will not interfere with adjacent above or underground utilities. So I say all that to say that in these pictures that they're depicting, you can clearly see that the trees are being installed already into the power lines. If you refer to the FPNL, Right Place, Right Tree space, it talks about how coconut trees at a mature height can reach between the heights of 50 and 100 feet. And then they ask that you have at least a 30 foot distance before the master arm. And if you can see in this picture, you can clearly see that the master arm is facing north, I believe that would be, over the coconut palms. So that means that these coconut palms are a direct impact under FLORIDA POWER OF LIGHTS LINES. THE TREES AS FAR AS THE GREEN HARDWOOD TREES THAT THEY PLANTED, THOSE ARE BRAZILIAN BEAUTY LEAVES WHICH HAVE A MATURE GROWTH AROUND 40 TO 50 FEET. YES, YOU CAN MAINTAIN THEM AS A HEDGE OR SO BUT THEN IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT IN THIS SCENARIO, then the argument would not be a tree. Then the argument would be you are essentially maintaining it as a hedge. Therefore, if you would go into our hedge ordinance into 4.65, then it talks about how We have mature heights of allowability of what hedges could be. And also that will fall into 4.614, which will be into the site visibility areas. And this will be then considered a landscape node. So then if this is being maintained to be a hedge or to stop the mature growth of these trees, then the allowable height will be between 30 and 36 inches.

4.614 D for our landscape notes yes

Yeah, those are when the trees were immediately installed. If you see those trees or the green hardwoods that's in between the coconuts, those are the trees that I'm referencing as Brazilian beauty leaves. And if you can see that the spacing that they were installed is essentially being installed as a hedge. Once they go to mature.

Yes.

Just talk a little bit about that.

I know that it was mentioned regarding the season. Is this something that just needs to be removed?

So the property currently has a approved landscape plan from the original bill that states that it's only allowed to have sod and irrigation. The work that you see now depicted in this picture is unapproved. The resident did submit a permit application where we provided comments to the applicant. response was made back to those comments that's why the application is in a pending status that does not that doesn't mean it's approved that means that it's it's denied and its current state so he would have to address the comments and that the reviewers made, and then we would go through another review process. And then if everything is made per the landscape regulations and engineering and everything follows through, then maybe we could approve. And then at that time, he would have an approved landscape. I'm not saying that it would be approved as what is currently pictured, but those are the process and steps to get a permit approved for right of way.

And by the way, the city has been responding

The city has been responsive. We've done several Zoom calls. We've done several meetings. But every time that we make an attempt or we come out of a conversation, communication is dismissed or deceased, and we don't receive anything back.

Your Honor, I'm going to object. You already ruled we're not going to hear about settlement, and that's exactly what Mr. Guadalupe said. That's correct.

Right, and I'm telling you, I'm responding about the conversations to that permit.

Okay, I understand that they have applied for a permit. Beyond that, I'm not whoever has to approve that permit or disapprove it, so I understand that they've applied for one, and that's fine.

I get it. This is just the finding of guilt.

I understand. I understand. Okay. Your objection is sustained. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from anybody?

Nothing from the city.

From the property owner.

May I ask Mr. Glover a couple follow-up questions?

Certainly. We can move it along, sure.

Yes, sir. Mr. Glover, the subject property, well, strike that. All right. You cited section 4.6.16c. Now, subsection A of that says that prior to the issuance of a building permit for a structure or a paving permit, compliance shall be assured through a review and approval of a landscape plan permitted pursuant to section 2.4.3c, including the following if applicable. And you stated a landscape permit which shall be required for all work whose landscape improvement valuation is greater than $1,000. That section calls for a landscape permit, doesn't it, not a building permit?

Yes, it calls for, you, Dean, a landscape permit for work that's over $1,000. All right.

And in this case, Mr. Burke's been cited for not obtaining a building permit, not a landscape permit. Isn't that correct?

A landscape permit is a specific type of permit under the building permit.

Okay. Well, the notice of violation just says obtain a building permit. It doesn't specifically say a code section to give my client notice of what's necessary. Would you agree?

I'm not understanding where you're going.

All right. The section you testified about requires a building permit. When a building permit for a structure is applied for prior to the issuance of it, then you need a landscape plan. There's no structure being applied for a building permit in this case, is there?

While he's looking, Counselor, let me ask this question. Are you arguing now that the violation that was issued cited the wrong section of the code? Is that going to be your argument?

Well, if the city is now saying that a landscaping permit is required under this code section, then yes, because the building permits, Section cited in the violation notice is a completely different section. It's in 2.4, I believe.

OK. All right. Let me hear the city's response.

Like I said, again, a landscape permit is a permit under the building permit.

Okay. And in the section that he's referring to that I gave testimony saying that all work on existing or anything under over $1,000 shall require a permit, it includes the same section that they were cited under as far as 2.43.

So it refers to the section 2.43, which would be over the umbrella. I understand. I understand. Mr. Schmidt, any response to that?

No, I'll just make...

Okay, well, let me say this about that issue. I'm not prepared to rule on that because I don't have the code in front of me. I don't have the documents in front of me.

I have a copy if you'd like.

I understand, but I'm not going to do it here and now. So if that is something which I think would be left to a motion on your part later on down the road... depending upon how this case resolves itself. But I can't rule on that right at this moment because I don't have, as I say, all of that information in front of me, and I'm not just going to rule on it based upon what I'm hearing. So I need to have the code. I need to have all the sections that are being cited. I need to have all the documents, and I don't have those at the moment. This comes as somewhat of a surprise to hear this argument being made, but that's okay. So I'm not going to rule on that presently. Anything else? No, Mr. Schmidt. Okay. I thank you all, first of all, for all your testimony, and I've learned things about trees and bushes and sod today that I didn't know before, but that's not the issue. The issue is here with distilling everything down is that there is simply no permit that's been in effect. That's it, and nobody disagrees with that, and there is a permit required. And I'm not the permit expert, but there is a permit required. And when you distill all of the testimony and all the evidence that I've listened to and heard, it comes down to that, that there is simply not been a permit for the trees and the bushes that are there. I also understand from listening to the testimony that this case has had quite a history, which, again, doesn't really matter in terms of my decision, but it seems like there's been some efforts. But is there a, I heard the term, a magistrate's order that's already in effect? Is there such a thing? Ms. Warren or Mr. Schmidt?

There was only an order continuing the case until this date. So this is the first.

Oh, continuing the case. Okay. I thought that perhaps a magistrate had already issued some type of order, whether there was a fine or whether there was a violation or not. Okay. So it was just a continuance. Okay. So it's come to me. All right. Fine. I will find that the permit has not been issued and that the property is not in compliance because that's the testimony that I think I've heard from both sides, quite frankly. The question then becomes what do we do? It appears that a permit has been applied for but that there is some discussions and again I don't want to get into any settlement discussions and I don't really know the status of that particular permit, where it is or how it's proceeding. So I'm not really going to ask at this point that the trees that are there be torn out and just replaced with sod. I just don't think that that's appropriate, given the fact that there is a pending permit. Not necessarily it's going to pass, but that there is a pending permit. So therefore, I'm not inclined to allow the removal or issue an order that's going to remove all of the trees that are existing. If there are problems regarding these trees, I think that needs to be worked out before the permit will be issued. But it seems as though there's some blockage here, that something is not going right. I would urge both sides to try to get it together. So here's what I'm going to do at this point. Number one, I do find that there is a violation and that the property is not in compliance. that the permit has not been issued. And again, I think, Mr. Schmidt, I know you know this, but for your sake, Mr. Burke, you're in the city right-of-way. Now, these are trees, but still it's the city right-of-way. And if something happens to those trees and causes an accident to someone or an injury to someone, the city is going to have a problem with that so that's why the city is concerned about what gets placed in its right away whether it's trees or another structure or anything like that so please understand the city's concern here is very legitimate and and it's taken seriously that's why they have these codes and that's why they must be followed to end this what i'm going to do is again give them 30 days to come into compliance by getting the permit if not I know it was asked for $250. I'm going to ask, I'm going to order a $500 a day fine if the permit is not received within 30 days. Yeah.

we just want to clarify that it's you know you know complete the process to attempt to get a permit and whatever the response from the city would be whether it's removal of the trees and that's what i've said compliance with the code compliance with the code

No, no, I'm not making that decision whatsoever. I'm not making that finding of fact. And that's not my decision. It's not that everything is approved. It's that there is a permit process going on from what I've been told. I don't know why it's taken this long. This case seems to go back into the end of last year in December of last year. I don't know why it's taken so long. I don't know what's happened. And necessarily, I don't care about that. At this moment, what I'm going to do, as I've said, is find that the property is not in compliance with the code. There is a permit pending. Therefore, I believe the permit process should take place. If it is not done within 30 days, then a $500 a day fine will be instituted.

For clarification, 30 days will be August 1st. Yeah. I'm sorry.

Yeah. August 1st, 2026. This is the first. I can't see that from here. I don't know.

No, it has not. Here we go. It's not been denied, Your Honor. There were comments and responses at the end of January, and that's where it stands right now.

I don't know how the permit will end up. I don't know if the permit will be denied. I don't know if the permit will make certain exceptions or exclusions. I don't know. But what I'm saying simply is I want the permit process to go through on this case that has been going on for far too long for 30 more days. What happens will happen. And Mr. Burke and his attorney will then have to proceed from there. But in terms of what I'm doing today, it's 30 days or $500 a day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Case number five. Code 26. The property owner is Ricardo Maset Nento. The property address is 2132 Southwest 12th Court. And the code officer on the case is Chandler Ferguson.

I appreciate that, Ms. Warren.

Thank you.

All right, we're on to the next case, number five. Okay, well, that's going to be a problem.

That's a problem. That's why I wanted to make sure that yeah uh madam court reporter i'm going to order that you have a discussion with ms warren about and eliminate any conversations between she and her client private conversations if that was if please listen please listen to what i'm saying if those were recorded those need to be eliminated OK, whoever does it, but I don't want it released. I don't want the transcript released to anyone until Ms. Warren has, please listen to what I'm saying, until Ms. Warren has had an opportunity to exclude any private conversations that she had with her client. So I'm ordering it that it go first to Ms. Warren before it goes to anyone. I'm sorry Mr. Schmidt is not here, but that's on the record. That's the way it's going to be. Yeah, that's got to be excluded. That's attorney-client privilege, and we're not going to violate that under any circumstances. All right, thank you. I know you understand, but I want to be clear on the record. All right, next case. I think we said number five. Did we call it?

Yes, I can call it again. Please do. Thank you. Case number five. Code 26-000-717. The property owner is Ricardo Masetti Neto. The property address is 2132 Southwest 12th Court. And the code officer on the case is Chandler Ferguson.

Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Chandler Ferguson, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Derry Beach. Case number 26-000-717. This property, 2132 Southwest 12th Court, was issued a notice of violation on May 1st, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on May 4th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on May 6th, 2026. An affidavit of posting and an affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. This property was cited for extending a driveway without an approved permit, 2.4.13B building permits. As of June 12, 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.

So this...

This first photograph depicts the property appraisal, which has the property owner's information, which we mailed it to. Exhibit two is my courtesy notice, the door hanger, which I posted on April 24, 2026. This is another photo on the same day of the entire property. You can see the driveway with the rocks, the unpermitted extended driveway. Exhibit 4 is just a photo kind of showing you the entire property, including the extended driveway going into the right-of-way swell area. This is just another angle so you can see that the rocks that are in the right-of-way are in the street, which is unsafe, as well as the sidewalk. You can see the rocks are all on the sidewalk as well. This, Exhibit 6, is a photo of the violation, which I posted Monday, June 15, 2026. This is another photo of the posting on June 15, 2026. This was the re-inspection on which I took of the right-of-way on June 15. You can see that they attempted to remove the rocks from the right-of-way area, but the permits were still not approved at the time. Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 10 is the noncompliance, which was the day which they had to come into compliance to get those permits approved. The city... The city is asking for an additional 30 days for them to come into compliance, which would be August 1, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

Ms. Warren, are you moving the exhibit in? I take it there's no opposition since there's no property owner, is that correct?

No, correct.

All right. You've had some communication with this person?

Yes, yes, yes. They're out of state, which is why I couldn't.

All right. Then I will find that the property is not in compliance, that service is proper, and we'll give them 30 days to come into compliance or $100 a day as a fine will be instituted.

Thank you. Case number six, code 26000779. The property owner is Jean Serge and Luis Ennode. The property address is 2132 Dawson Way. The code officer on the case is Chantel Jean Baptiste.

Good afternoon, my name is code enforcement officer Jean Baptiste Chantel. for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 2132 Dorsen Way, was issued a notice of violation on June 2nd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on June 5th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on June 5th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I have not been in contact with the owner of property. This property was cited for 4.6.16, subsection E, subsection 3, landscape vehicle encroachment, which complied on June 25th, 2026. And it was cited for 7.8.3, maintenance of building, which complied on June 25th, 2026. Remaining 100.07, subsection A, subsection B has not complied. As of June 25th, as of June 28th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have... few photos of the property to this case that I would like to introduce. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be August the 1st, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for $50 a day until compliance is achieved. Exhibit one is the property address. It shows the property address and the owner of property. Exhibit two, this photo was taken from the street view on June the 2nd, 2026, showing that the vehicle is encroached on the landscape, which the landscape is deteriorated, and on the left side, the vehicle is on a jack, is inoperable. Exhibit three is a second photo taken on June 2nd, 2026, showing where the vehicle is sitting on a jack, is inoperable, and as well as the vehicle It's on the landscape. Exhibit four is a third photo taken from the street view showing the full property, 2132 Thorson Way. Exhibit five, this photo was taken on June 5th, 2026, where I posted on property. Exhibit six is an affidavit of posting and mailing, which was posted on the property. June 5th, 2026. On June 25th, 2026, the vehicles are removed off the landscape area, parked into the driveway, as well as the inoperable is off the jack. However, the landscape area, the owner did not apply sodding. So that's what we're bringing to magistrate today. They have to apply for sod within 30 days or $50 daily. Fine. And exhibit 8 was the affidavit of non-compliance as of June 28 2026 I'll be all I Take it there is no objection because there is no property owner.

So therefore they are admitted into evidence Any further testimony that you have I

No.

No respondent. So therefore, I will find that the property owner is not in compliance, that the service was proper, and that you are requiring them to Lay down the sod that's that's what you're seeking today is for them to replace the sod that was destroyed By these cars being on the property. Okay, and that you are giving a 30-day request for compliance till August 1st 2026 or if not, then a $50 fine will be instituted Correct. That's what I shall order All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Case number seven, code 26, 000769. The property owner is Jesse and Carol Hunter. The property address is 2892 Southwest 6th Street. The code officer on the case is Supervisor Joseph Oliva. However, the case will be presented by Aaron Kester.

Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. I, Aaron Kester, Code Enforcement Officer Intern for the City of Delray Beach, am presenting this case for Joseph Oliva, Code Enforcement Supervisor for the City of Delray Beach. Case number code 26000769. This property, 2892 Southwest 6th Street, was issued a notice of violation on May 26, 2026. Service was accomplished by a certified and regular mail sent on May 29, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on May 28, 2026. An affidavit of posting and noncompliance are attached to the case. I have been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for code 2.4.13 building permits. As of July 1st, 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 the property to come into compliance by August 1st, which is 30 days. If they do not come into compliance, the city has been asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

Thank you and just to confirm you. You've you've discussed this case with the supervisor as well as review the code enforcement file and had your own independent observations, correct? Alright, thank you.

Because everyone is the property appraisal which shows the owner of the property. Exhibit 2 is a picture of the front of the property showing the address. This was taken on May 27th, 2026. Exhibit three is a view from an adjacent property that we gained access from a neighbor. They permitted us onto the property to take pictures. This was on May 27th, 2026 as well. Exhibits four and five are also from that same property with different vantage points showing the fence extending along the property line there. It's the tall yellow wood fence. That's another view. Exhibit six is the posting of the violation showing in the corner there. And exhibit seven is the affidavit of the posting itself. Exhibit eight is the first affidavit of noncompliance.

Thank you. At this time, the Senate would like to introduce the eight exhibits into evidence.

The respondent, therefore, there's no objection. Therefore, the exhibits are admitted. And is there any other evidence that you wish to offer?

Yes. As of today, July 2nd, the property has applied for and is in the process of obtaining a permit through the Building Services Department. The permit was applied for on June 5th and is currently in the hands of the resident for corrections.

Okay. So they're in the permitting process. Is that what you would say? All right. Okay. I will find that the property is not yet in compliance and may not come into compliance, but at the moment it is not in compliance and therefore is in violation of the code. I will also find that the service on the property owner was correct and proper. And I will order that the property come into compliance within 30 days, which would be August 1st, 2026. Or there will be a $100 a day fine will be instituted.

Thank you.