Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

Is the city ready?

Yes. All right. We hereby call this meeting to order. This is the special magistrate for the city of Delray Beach. Cases will be called in the order in which they appear on the agenda unless we otherwise note it. If you haven't already, please make sure you have signed in at the front of the chamber. When you hear your case called, go ahead and proceed to the podium here on my left-hand side. The city will put on its testimony and evidence first. You'll have an opportunity to review any evidence that the city presents or to ask questions of any of the city's witnesses, after which time you can present your own testimony and evidence and I will make a decision. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the formal rules of evidence do not apply here. However, all testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury. So I'm going to ask that if you're going to testify today or you think you might testify, there's a possibility that you might testify and ask that you raise your right hand and rise so that you can be sworn in. Anyone that might testify, even if there's a small possibility you might testify, now is your time.

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. Consent agenda.

Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written.

So approved. We don't have any minutes, right?

No minutes.

All right. I guess we're ready for item one.

Case number one, code 26, 000690. The property owner is Hessler Family LLC. The registered agent is Greenberg Law Group, P.A., The property address is 4591 West Atlantic Avenue, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste.

Is anyone here on behalf of the Hesier Family LLC? All right, come on up. Just a reminder, if you hear your case call, go ahead and proceed to the podium over here on my left-hand side.

Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 4591 West Atlantic Ave, was issued a notice of violation on April 22, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and regular mail sent on May 4, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on May 7, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in this case. I've had contact with property owner. The property was cited for 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection I, landscape maintenance required. 4.6.11, outside storage of materials and similar items. 7.1.3, subsection B, subsection III, handicap accessibility, which complied on July 14th, 2026, and 2.2.4, subsection B, certificate of plan. As of July 14th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 25 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 60 days, which would be September 14th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved.

How many days were you asking for?

60 days, which would be September 14th, 2026. Exhibit one is a photo of the front property showing the outside storage on a walkway, which was taken April 15, 2026. Exhibit two is a second photo taken of the property outside storage and items on blocking accessibility for the handicapped and also showing more outside storage towards the rear of property. Exhibit 3, additional photos taken on April 15, 2026, of outside storage, as well as there were landscapes that were removed and then stored outside storage to the rear of property. Exhibit 3 is a closer photo taken on April 15, 2026, of outside storage and missing landscape. Exhibit 5 is... additional photos taken of property on April 15th, 2026. Exhibit six, showing full outside storage on racks and as well as where the landscape was supposed to be, there's outside storage. Exhibit seven, additional photos taken on April 15th, 2026. Exhibit eight, additional photos taken on April 15th, 2026 of outside storage. Exhibit nine shows where there's no access for handicap access because of all the outside storage on the walkway. Exhibit 10 is an affidavit of posting, sorry. Exhibit nine was a posting on May 7th, 2026. Exhibit 10 is an affidavit of posting on May 7th, 2026. Exhibit 11 is re-inspection on June 26, 2026, showing that the property is not in compliance. It's still outside storage at the time of the photo. Exhibit 12, close-up photo taken on 2026 of June. There's no access for the handicapped.

Go ahead, ma'am. Which photo?

Barbecue item grills. Correct. So if someone comes with a handicap, they're unable to access inside the store. Like, all that has to be removed. Did you want me to go to the previous exhibit? No, no.

I just wanted to clarify. Make sure that's clear on the record.

Exhibit 13, additional photos taken of the sidewalk. on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 14 is additional photo taken of the opposite way, taken on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 15, additional photos taken of property on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 16, additional photo taken of outside storage on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 17, this photo taken of the dumpster area on June 26, 2026. Exhibit 18 shows they did put hedges back where it was supposed to be. This photo was taken on June 26, 2026.

But those hedges, they weren't approved, right?

They were there. They were supposed to be there from the site plan. They had removed them to store outside storage items. So they removed the outside storage items, and then they placed those hedges.

But they never got approval to remove or replace them?

No, ma'am. Thank you. Exhibit 19 is affidavit of noncompliance from June 26, 2026. Exhibit 20, I took additional photos which the outside storage was removed from the sidewalk on June 14th, 2026. Exhibit 21, show they removed outside storage and now there's access for the handicap. This photo was taken on July 14th, 2026. Exhibit 22, I took a photo of the directly front of the store on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 23, additional photo taken of the property on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 14, more outside storage was removed. However, this remained on July 14, 2026. Exhibit 25 is the last photo the outside storage and this era was removed However, the rack is still there and then showing more of a clear photo of the landscape The hedges that were installed to the rear of the property. These are my 25 photo.

I like to submit Not on a site plan

Sir, can you tell me your name, please? I'm sorry? Can you tell me your name, please?

Dan Hessler.

And, sir, are you the owner of the property?

I am.

On behalf of the Hessler Family LLC?

I am.

And you leased this to the hardware store?

Yes.

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

No, I don't. I would like to ask a question, though, if it's okay.

Give me one sec. Without objection, I'm going to accept those into evidence as city's composite exhibit. You can ask your question, sir.

Okay. In regards to the front sidewalk where we had grills there, the ADA calls for 36 inches between two fixed surfaces, and we had 36 inches. So is it different than local code, I guess?

If you're asking me to respond, Magistrate Wagner, I believe that you'd have to be approved to do the business outside of the business, and whether that's in compliance with the ADA or not, that will be a part of the plan review.

I guess there's a technical legal question here, which is whether or not there constituted a violation of the handicapped access.

Right, but I guess I was just getting to if it wasn't approved, that's the next step, and if that's something that he wanted permission for, he would have to get with Development Services for that type of approval.

And they seem to be here, right?

Correct. But I don't, you know, we can't really have the meeting in the meetings, right? But I don't, if you want us to answer that specifically, we can, but I just think that it wasn't approved.

The only issue about whether I would need to is whether or not the city is asking me to make a finding that a violation of that particular section occurred. If the city is not pursuing that, then it's not really that relevant. believe she said that was in compliance to handicap accessibility correct so if the city's not pursuing that then it doesn't really matter though you know you might want to know so somebody probably should tell you but for my purposes if the city isn't trying to find a violation of that section then it doesn't really matter to me but i get why you'd want to know yeah and the only reason we asked because like

up for like unbelievable and out front they may well have site plans that approve that though so I could ask for an approval on it not for me I'm not that I'm just asking that's something you'd have to discuss with the we have our assistant director that would just kind of want to chime in on that Amy Alvarez development services yes we can we can work with

with you on what is needed as far as your site plan. The code allows 10% outdoor retail display, so we can look at those parameters and make sure that everything in the areas where you would be approved are in compliance with ADA accessibility.

I just want to make a comment. Look, I want to be compliant. I want to be a team player. I admit the back of the store got out of hand. If you go in my store, it's immaculate. Everybody comments how nice where Billy looks from the street, and I let it go, and I take full responsibility for it. But I'm just looking to see if there's some way of a compromise where we can sell some things outside as a retail display. So we can do business. We're a local harbor business.

I think what the city is, and stop me if I'm mischaracterizing, the city is not saying that some of these activities couldn't be lawful. They're just saying they have to be done with an approved site plan. Okay. Is that accurate?

Yes. We don't have any other witnesses. I don't know if he had a presentation for his case or wanted to make argument.

So the city is asking for 60 days. Is 60 days enough time for you to bring this into compliance?

What do I need to still do?

So what the city is asking me to do is give you 60 days to bring the property into compliance or subject you to a possible fine of up to $250 per day. What I'm asking you, is this 60 days enough time for you to?

I'm not clear on what I need to be compliant on still.

Officer, what's still outstanding?

Remove the remaining outside storage and get with land development with the site plan to figure out what site plan is needed to have either the rack. If you're able to have that.

The racks can come down. I don't need any more.

And as well with the landscape for the missing landscape you need, the trees in certain areas, you'll have to get with the landscape inspector. Okay. They'll tell you exactly.

I'm not going to email on that yet. I asked them to send an email. I never saw that we're going to take care of it.

You can meet with that department. He'll specify exactly what's needed.

I feel like 90 days might be a better number here.

You think?

I mean... Because he's going to have to probably do some stipend. Well, you tell me.

That's fine. I just consulted with our assistant director. He said that's fine with the whole review process. Okay.

Sir, I'm going to push the deadline to 90 days instead of the 60 that the city is asking for. Sometimes it takes some time to do these meetings and to get this right, and it sounds to me like you're trying to bring this into compliance.

I absolutely want to, but so I have to get the racks down.

And we can have someone, you know.

You know what, I'm sure the officer can meet with you and talk you through exactly what the issues are, but I'll give you the 90 days. Okay, thank you. All right, code 26000690. I'm finally falling...

Excuse me.

Violations as listed except for 7.1.3B3, which has since complied. I give the respondent 90 days to come to compliance or a fine of up to $250 per day on the issue. Anyone calculate 90 days? I know we're big date certain. October 14, 2026.

Date certain.

Thank you. Case number two. Code 26-000-764. The property owner is Libine Bernard. The property address is 516 Northwest 48th Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste.

Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. This property, 516 Northwest 48th Avenue, was issued a notice of violation on May 27, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on May 28, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on May 27, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in this case. I've had contact with property owner, The property was cited for 2.4.13 building permit for AC wall unit install. As of July 14th, the property has not come into compliance. I have five photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce. The CDIS acts an additional 30 days, which will be August the 15th, 2026 for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit 1 was taken on May 27, 2026 of the AC wall unit installed without building permits. Exhibit 2 was a posting on property on June 1, 2026. Exhibit three is an affidavit of posting, which was posted on June 1st, 2026. Exhibit four is a re-inspection of the property, the ATY unit still present. And exhibit five, a non-compliance affidavit, July 1st, 2026. The owner of property did apply for permits on June 16th, 2026, but the permits were not approved yet. As of yet.

Do we know why?

No, it's in process. It hasn't been approved yet.

Do you think 30 more days is going to be enough time? I guess to some degree we have to know why they're not approved yet.

I can find out.

If you want, we can check to see what the comments are, to see where they are in the approval stage.

I was just asking the supervisor if he can check to see if it's.

You know, sometimes, you know, a lot of times we're waiting on comments from the applicant.

More often than not, that's usually the reason.

So we just wanted to see where it was. The last time when I checked the comments, they were missing a document, which I spoke to him, and he said he was going to have either his HC tech or himself was going to come and submit some additional documents. After that, I don't know if he corrected that. That was the last time I've checked. That seems like a good question to ask him.

Let me just ask, I assume you want to submit these in evidence? One through five?

Yes.

Sir, can you tell me your name?

Libyan Bernard.

Mr. Bernard, do you have any objection to these photographs or documents?

No.

All right, without objection, so admitted. So where are we on the permit?

There was a last paper that was asked me, but I already downloaded, sent it to the city already.

When did you do that?

I think we were doing it last week. Last Tuesday, and they all said, like, my electricity tech said, like, they've been approved from the city when it was downloaded. But after that, like, I don't know nothing going on yet. But so far, I know the one they asked me, I would send it to you guys already.

Supervisor Oliva, do we know what the status is?

I'm looking it up now, sir.

It's slow, but... Well, it seems to me that...

I'm not sure how much time do we think he needs. Maybe we can... Yeah.

I mean, it seems to me if we're down to one document that he's already submitted, 30 days seems pretty reasonable to me, unless there's a reason not to think so.

I agree. Okay. That's what the city would recommend.

Yeah, it says the review is complete on the status, so it should be 30 days, you were saying? Yeah, 30 days.

Yeah, that ought to be plenty. Sir, I'm going to extend. I'm going to find that this is a violation, but I'm going to give you 30 days to bring it into compliance. It sounds like you're almost there. I would just check back with the billing department and also with the code officer. I can give you some help. just to make sure that everything gets complied before the end of 30 days. I've seen many times in these cases where people think everything is done, and then they don't pay any attention to it, and it's not complied, and then fines start rolling, and I don't want to see that happen to you. It seems like you're pretty close. Just make sure that the approval comes through, and if you have questions, ask the code officer, and she can give you some direction, okay?

Thank you.

All right, in case 26000764, I make the following findings of fact and life. I notice it's sufficient. I find the property in violation of 2.413B building permits for the missing permit on the AC. Responder has 30 days to come to compliance or August 15th, 2026, or a fine of up to $100 per day measure.

Thank you. Case number three, code 26000783. The property owner is Carl F. Vuela. The property address is 2839 Angla Drive. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste.

Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city.

I'm sorry, officer, just before you start. Is there anyone here on behalf of Carl F. Vuela? I'm sorry. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean-Baptiste, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. The property, 2839 Angler Drive, was issued a notice of violation on June 2, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified mail and regular mail on June 3, 2026. In addition, both the property and the city hall were posted on June 3, 2026. In addition, an affidavit of posting is attached. In this case, I have not been in contact with the property owner. The property was cited for 7.8.3, maintenance of the building, 4.6.13, subsection A, subsection 2, parking commercial and private, 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection 1, landscape maintenance, and 4.6.16, subsection H, subsection 1, subsection E, sodding of the right-of-way, As of July 14, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 14 photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which would be August the 15th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $250 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit one taken on June 2nd, 2026.

How long was that sitting out there?

I took, I identified this on June 2nd. I took the photo and immediately issued a notice of violation. From June 2nd, I can't tell you how long it's been out there, but as soon as I identified it, I issued a notice of violation. Exhibit two is showing Additional trash on the roof and outside items to the left of the property. Exhibit 3, taken on June 2nd, 2026, showing the front of property and the address. There's other items like drums, carpet. Exhibit 3, it was a posting posted on property on June 3rd, 2026, and there's washers, drums, and items outside front driveway. Exhibit five is affidavit of posting, which is June 3rd, 2026. Exhibit six was a re-inspection on June 28th, 2026. The trash is still present and on the roof as well. Exhibit seven was taken on June 28th, 2026, a different angle from the street view, another photo taken from the street view. Exhibit 8 is showing there's landscape that's damaged on the property as well as the right-of-way. They have to apply sodding, and as well there's pallets that need to be removed as well as the trailer. Exhibit 9, taken on June 28, 2026, taking a closer photo. The pallets need to be removed off the property. Exhibit 10, taking another angle from the street view of the property on June 28, 2026. Exhibit 11 is noncompliance affidavit attached on June 28, 2026.

Was the trailer still there?

It was still there, my last re-inspection.

Thank you, Ms. Jean-Bertube, just to kind of go through the different violations that we have on this property. So we have the maintenance of buildings and all those items that you went through, some of the stuff at the beginning. I know in the beginning you said you don't know exactly when they removed it, but it was definitely there, correct, when you did your initial inspection. And in fact, there was at least one bag left towards, or after your compliance, correct?

Yes.

And then you have the items on the roof, just overall general maintenance of the building. And then you have the parking on the sod issue. It's obvious. This area where this vehicle is parked. Yes, they have to apply sod. To just be clear, that's not a driveway or extended approved driveway?

Not an extended driveway. Just where all the landscape is damaged, they have to apply sod on the right-of-way and the property as well.

Okay. Informally, that's supposed to look like the rest of the lawn. It's just supposed to be grass, correct? Yes. And then you have the other issue of the sod missing in the right-of-way. Yes. And homeowners are supposed to maintain the right-of-way in accordance with our city ordinances, correct? And LDRs, right? And then just overall. So as of today, as we sit here and after the compliance date, all four of the violations were still out of compliance, correct? Yes. Okay, thank you. At this time, the city would like to introduce the exhibits into evidence.

Without objection, so admitted. What is the building maintenance issue?

They have to remove the maintenance of buildings, the trash. They have to remove the items that's on the property, the drums, the carpet, the pallet, that material there. They have to clean up, like remove everything, outside storage, everything.

It's not really building maintenance. I mean, I think it's covered by your other sections now.

Well, this is the one that we felt that was most appropriate. But if you read the code section, the code text of it.

It does say secure and sanitary. Correct.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say. You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you.

Okay, one more time. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? All right, in case 26000783, I make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice this efficient, I find the property in violation. Of the four listed code sections, I adopt by reference the testimony of the code officers and the nature of those violations. I give the respondent until August 15, 2026 to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $250 per day, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Case number four. Code 26-000-787. The property owners are Leonard J. Salvaggio Revocable Trust, where Leonard J. Salvaggio is the trustee. The property address is 415 Homewood Boulevard, and the code officer on the case is Chantel Jean-Baptiste.

Is anyone here on behalf of Leonard J. Salvaggio? Okay. For the record, I see no one.

Good afternoon. My name is Code Enforcement Chantelle Jean Baptiste with the City of Derry Beach. This property, 415 Homewood Boulevard, was issued a notice of violation on June 2nd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on June 5th, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on June 7th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had been in contact with the property owner, The property was cited for 4.6.19 subsection E subsection one. There's a vegetation removal permit. As of July 6th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have seven photographs of this property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be August 15th, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $100 daily fine until compliance is achieved. Exhibit one is shown.

I'm so sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Jean-Baptiste. But we also wanted to notate that the permit was just issued. It was just issued. So outside.

Hold on one moment.

Do you want to continue or do you want to continue?

No, you can close it.

Okay. I was just advised that the supervisor, they would like to close out the case. Thank you. Thank you. Justin.

Dismissed.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're closing. Okay, thank you. Okay, now for the next four cases, these are being heard together?

Yes, so we're requesting that case number five, six, seven, eight, and nine be heard together, it's basically five units on one plot, like one plat, but they're platted separately. So it's literally the same facts, same pictures. So we just wanna hear them all at once. Thank you.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yes, my name is Sam Kersner.

And did you want to call out the case numbers? I can. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Now calling cases five through nine. Code 26-000-816. Code 26-000-817. Code 26-000-818. Code 26-000-819. And code 26000820. The owners for all said properties are Artist Alley Townhouse, LLC. The registered agent is Registered Agents, Inc. And the code officer on the case is Haines Batista Hernandez.

Mr. Kusner, what is your position with Artist Alley Townhomes?

I'm a member of an LLC that's a member of Artist Alley Townhomes LLC.

So you're a subsidiary?

I'm a natural person that's a member of an LLC that's a member of the LLC. I'm sorry. Again, I'm a member of an LLC that's a member of Artist Alley Townhomes LLC, which owns this property. Okay. Yeah.

So you're representative of a company that's a subsidiary of the LLC.

Correct. I'm here for Artist Alley Towns LLC today.

Correct. And they authorized you to be here?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Janice Batista Hernandez, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Delray Beach Clean and Safe Division. I'm here today regarding violations of overgrown landscape and construction site maintenance at 216, 218, 222, and 224 Northeast 4th Street, Delray Beach, Florida. On June 25 to 26, I conducted an inspection of the property located at 216, 218, 220, 222, and 224 Northeast 4th Street. During my inspection, I observed the construction site had not been maintained in violation with the city minimum maintenance required and construction and demolition site regulations. The inspection was conducted for the public right away outside of the boundaries of the approved construction site, where the violations were clearly visible. Upon review of the land development regulations of the city code of ordinances, these conditions constitute to violation of section 4.16, subsection i, subsection 1, and section 51.45, subsection a. of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, LDR. A notice of violation was created on June 25, 2026, with a compliance date set for July 10, 2026. A notice of violation was posted on the property on June 27, 2026. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent via certified mail and first class mail and posted to City Hall on June 29, 2026. A re-inspection conducted on July 11, 2026. and the property had not complied. However, on July 15, 2026, I met with the property manager, Sam, who's here today. He had completed some work on the property, but had still not fully been in compliance. As of today's hearing, the violation had not been fully corrected. I have 17 documents to present into evidence. The city is requesting 30 days for the property to come in compliance, if not a shift within the 30 days, a $250 fine per unit, which equals to $1,250 daily fine. If the fine remains unpaid after the time allowed, the city requests that the order be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County, where it should constitute a lien against the property in accordance with chapter 162 of Florida's statutes.

That's a different hearing.

OK.

This would be the papa. for all of them. And this is the sun base. Exhibit three is one of the sides of the property. That would be 2024. This is the back of the same property, 2024. This is the other side, which is one of the main reasons why we're here today. There you can see the landscape, which is the back. Exhibit 7 is also the back. That's the affidavit of posting, which was posted on the 27th of June.

So before we go on, can you go back to the last photograph?

Yes, ma'am.

So just for clarification, these photographs were taken during your initial inspection on June 25th? Yes, ma'am. So those one through seven?

Yes.

Well, I guess the pictures of the property, right? And these photographs apply to all case numbers? Yes, ma'am. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, correct? Yes, ma'am. On the docket. All right. Thank you.

This is the affidavit of posting. That's the posting on June 27th. That's the affidavit of noncompliance, Exhibit 11. Exhibit 12 is a picture of the whole property that was taken on the 11th. This one is exhibit 13. That's actually the property 216. Exhibit 15 is the site of 2024. Exhibit 16 it's the other side Exhibit 17 is the back. You could see the fence needs work and the overgrown At this time the city would like to introduce the exhibit into evidence Certainly have any objection to those photographs or documents

I don't, other than I'm not sure that based on the photographs, we can conclude that each and every one of the individual lots are not in compliance. I don't know that they're clearly marked in that way.

So the way the property is set up, and I wish we had a picture of the property appraiser. So as I kind of stated in the beginning, everything's on one specific lot that's owned by the property. And then they have different plats. So just collectively, I'm not sure if he's asking which one of the areas, but it's kind of unique because they're all platted separately and it's one building. And it's kind of like all around the area.

Just to make this concrete, the city is asking for a separate $250 fine for each and every one of the individual plots. From my interpretation of the evidence, I don't see that each and every one of those individual plots is not in compliance. I see...

General pictures, but I don't know that each and every one of those plots is not in compliance Also, yeah, I think as a practical first off for the record I'm gonna accept those documents and photos and evidence I think is a practical question there clearly was a violation that existed at some point. I don't contest that Yeah, but I don't know as a practical matter if the city's gonna come back and try to assess the fine and I Guess they wanted to give you 30 days, but if they're gonna come back and assess the fine you could make the argument that, you know, these plots are in compliance and this one isn't, right, or based on whatever their evidence is. So I think that's really sort of an issue for another day because I don't think there's any issue that all of them were in noncompliance at some point, right, so the violation did exist. You may have brought them into compliance at some point, but at this point, I mean, you know, I don't think it would preclude me from making a violation statement. But go ahead.

I don't know that I could concede that all of them were in violation, but there was apparently some violation. As far as the question of whether we could introduce them into evidence, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be okay with the caveat with the statement that I just made.

Okay.

I think that would be a more of an argument for a finding, you know.

Yeah, the question of admission is if there's something fundamentally wrong. You can argue about what they mean, right? You know, admitting them into evidence doesn't mean they have to be interpreted one way. It's just that they're in evidence, which I'm fine with. Does the city have anything further they want to present? No. Officer Batista Hernandez, what is outstanding in your view since the last time you were there? I guess you were there yesterday.

I was there yesterday, and he did do some work. However, the side of the building is still not in compliance. The fence needs work because half of them is down. He does still have to do landscape maintenance. And he has to fix the other side of the construction site. All the construction material that they're using, they're just laying there. It doesn't look how it's supposed to be according to the city ordinances.

What's it supposed to look like?

It's supposed to look nicely neat, and everything is just strong there. Stacked and orderly, right?

Yes, sir.

You know, I'm so sorry. We did have a concerned neighbor. She just wanted to say something about the property.

It's your case. Do I walk away? No.

You can stay. We have another seat. You're fine. Over here. Over here?

Okay.

Or if it's easier for you, I'll come to you. Yeah. Okay. So good afternoon.

Could you please spell your full name and give us your address? Yes, my full name is Therese Tavano, T-H-E-R-E-S-E. Last name is Tavano, T-A-V as in Victor, A-N as in Nancy.

And are you familiar with the property located near the 216, Northeast 4, the 218, Northeast 4, that whole unit that we're looking at here?

I am, and I frequently go by that. abandoned building often.

And you live in that area?

And I live in that area. Okay. And I've spoken to several other residents in the city of Delray in the local area, and they're quite concerned over the fact that it's deteriorating and it has deteriorated immensely.

Ma'am, I'm happy to hear what you think. I don't really want to hear what other people have told you.

Oh, well, I'm telling you what I think. So that's me. So how about this?

You tell us what your observations are and what your concerns about the nature or the condition of the property.

OK. Can I ask or can I find out when is this going to be completed?

No, we just want to know what you saw. Oh, what I saw. What you see, what you've heard, what you know about the property.

What I saw is what was done yesterday with the reference to cleaning up the sides of the building and whatever and some of the landscaping.

Before you saw the cleanup, what did you see? What was that? What was it that concerned you about the property that made you want to come here and talk?

The tops that were placed all around the fence. They're all ripped and hanging, and partially the fence was never completely covered. So the tarps? The tarps.

Okay.

No. All right.

Was there anything else you saw that you were concerned about?

Yeah, and the weeds and all kinds of growth underneath the tarps is coming out onto the sidewalk. And I happened to go there and take a picture of the violation notice, and right forget it you don't want to know that but okay thank you okay it's just it's just a concerned person and i feel that uh yeah i think the building has been abandoned and it should be taken care of or taken down that's my my opinion i appreciate you coming in so i think some of the argument i think there was a question about you know the different plaques or if we're writing

Let me give the respondent a chance to present his side.

Well, I'm not sure if there's anything to respond to. Obviously, we're not insensitive to the needs of the public. And as said, I came and did the work yesterday. It's apparent that it was not brought fully into compliance, but I was advised by Hanise about this yesterday. I'm going to continue to do the work to bring it into compliance as best I can.

Are there people out there working on this property?

Right now? Not at this moment, but it's very possible I'll go there right after this hearing and continue the work.

So did you mean is this a construction site?

Oh, no, it's not an active. There's no active construction.

It's not an active construction. That's why the outside thirds, the overall construction.

Oh, okay. Well, that does change things. Is there anything else you want to tell me, sir?

No.

The city has asked me to give you 30 days. Is that a sufficient amount of time for you to accomplish what you need to do here?

I believe that should be sufficient. I'm not sure, though. I think that some of the issues that were just raised by Hanise were not in the original violation notice, so I just want that to be reflected in the record. With respect to the fence, I don't believe that there's any reference to any issues with the fence in the original violation notice. So I don't know what the procedure is. I don't know if I have to receive a new one, a new notice. I'm perfectly happy to take care of that. I just would like that to be reflected in the record.

We talked about the debris, the scrap, the...

It's landscaping and materials.

Materials. So, you know, look, I just spoke to the supervisor. We can stick to what we have here. The city will continue to review and watch the property. If there are any additional violations, we'll bring it to your attention.

Okay. That's fair. I don't know if this is the time or the place, but if you can clarify with respect to the tarp, it was mentioned by the concerned neighbor that there's an issue with the tarp. I don't know if that...

Right. Yeah.

I mean...

We're fine with saying this is materials and landscaping as we sit here today. That's just an observation of the witness. We never presented that in the case.

So what the city is saying is they're pursuing the landscaping and the materials that are improperly stored on the property. Those are the issues that are before me today.

And we think that 30 days is more than enough time to fix.

For that, I would think so, too.

That should be fine, yes.

All right, so in Code Cases 5 through 9, as already announced, I'm going to make the following findings a fact. On the live fine notice, sufficient to file the property in violation of the listed code section, specifically the maintenance of the area as well as the outside storage. Respondent has 30 days to come into compliance or a fine of up to $250 per violation per case may issue.

And just for clarifications, I know we presented this all as one. Can I just ask before you conclude your order, we just want to have a finding that each one of the individual property address parcels, can you confirm that you submitted complied with the notice requirements for each parcel. Yes. Correct.

I posted all of them independently. All of them.

You know, we didn't necessarily present each individual one into evidence, but I just wanted to at least get that on the record through her testimony.

So, Officer Patisa Hernandez, you noticed each of these properties? Yes, sir. Properly? And your observation was on each of these properties? Yes, sir.

And each of them we mail certified mail. Thank you.

All right. So noted. Good luck, sir. Thank you.

Thank you.

Case number 10, code 26000781. The property owner is Jenny Mae Merchant. The property address is 2888 Engler Drive. The code officer on the case is Joseph Oliva and the case will be presented by Aaron Kester.

So, Joseph, if you can make your introduction about interning and observations.

Yes, my name is Joseph Oliva. I'm the code supervisor, and this is Aaron Kessler. He is a code officer intern, and he's going to be presenting my case for me.

And he observed everything with you, correct?

Yes, he observed everything. He took all the photos. He wrote the violation. Yes. Thank you.

Before we start, is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case, Jenny May Merchant? All right, for the record, I don't see anyone.

Good afternoon, special magistrate.

Hold on a second. Is there somebody here?

No.

There's nobody here. OK. All right, for the record, there's nobody here. All right, go ahead.

There's a lot of people here.

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 officer supervisor for the city of Delray Beach. Case code, code 26000781. This property, 2888 Angler Drive, was issued a notice of violation on June 3rd, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail sent on June 3rd, 2026. In addition, both the property and City Hall were posted on June 4th, 2026. An affidavit of posting is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for code 7.1.5, numbering of buildings and structure, code 7.8.3, maintenance of buildings required, and code 4.6.16, subsection I, subsection 1, landscape maintenance general. As of July 15, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I've attached nine photographs of the property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. The city is asking for 30 days for the property to come into compliance by August 15, 2026. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

Exhibit 1 is the property appraisal detail.

Which lists the property owner, correct?

Yes, the Janie Mae Merchant. Merchant Janie Mae is the name of the property owner.

Exhibit 2 is the address of the property and on the mailbox. It was not located on the structure which I will also show in another photograph. Exhibit 3 is the structure itself absent to the letters as well as the dead trees which needed removal. They have since removed the trees. They did not however apply for the appropriate permits. This is the main structure. You can see the maintenance needed is the garage area as well as the fascia board above the garage. is in need of maintenance, as well as a little bit of landscape could use re-sodding. And there's the absence of the numbering for the house, which is required by fire department. Exhibit 5 is the picture of the posting of the property. Exhibit 6 is the affidavit of posting mailing. Exhibit 7 is a re-inspection on July 13, 2026, showing that the trees had been removed. However, no permit has been applied for at that time or now. Exhibit 8 is the property itself showing that the repair to the structure and the numbering still had not been completed, also in July that day. And this is the affidavit of noncompliance, is exhibit 9. I would like to introduce these nine items into evidence.

Without objection, so admitted. So we got two dead trees, some missing numbers, and a couple of dirty buildings. essentially what we got yes 30 days seems reasonable yes seems reasonable to me too all right case just out of curiosity be any contact with the property owner in this case no they have not reached out to us Case 26-00-0781, I make the following findings a fact in life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of the three listed code sections. I give the respondent until August 15, 2026 to come to compliance or find up to $100 per day in my issue.

Good job. Thank you.

Thank you. Case number 11, Code 26. The property owner is 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue, LLC. The property address is 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Before we begin, can we swear in Ms. Hoyland, please?

Absolutely. 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? Thank you.

good afternoon special magistrate my name is latoya thompson code supervisor with the city of delray beach code enforcement division i'm here regarding exterior interior alteration made to historic property without the required building permit and certificate of appropriateness on march 4th 2026 code enforcement was notified by development service staff that the interior site related and Exterior alterations, as well as changes to the building layout, have been made to the historic property located on 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, without a building permit, site plan application, or a certification correction certificate of appropriateness. An investigation was conducted using online imagery to document the property, followed by an on-site inspection. During an inspection, the Historic Preservation Division staff confirmed that the alteration has been made to the site and the building without requiring approval. These conditions constitute violations of the City of Delray Beach land development regulations, including Section 2.4.10, Subsection A, Subsection 1, site plan application, Section 2.4.12, subsection A, subsection 1 through 5, certificate of appropriateness, and section 2.4.13, building permit. I have 31 photos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was issued May 6, 2026. The violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted to City Hall on May 15, 2026. The compliance date was required by June 17th, 2026 and July 1st, 2026. The violation was posted to the property on May 14th, 2026. The case was rescheduled on July 16th of 2026. It wasn't ready to go to a hearing. So the violation was reposted on the property July 4th, 2026. Violation was mailed first class certified mail and posted to city hall on June 29th, 2026. A reinspection was conducted June 20th, 2026. The property located on 401 Northeast 2nd Avenue. It was observed that a level one site plan had been submitted. However, additional corrections were and are required for sufficiency. Additionally, the certificate of appropriation application was voided in the system. Therefore, the property remains out of compliance.

Why was it voided?

Michelle Hoyland, principal planner, development services. Could you repeat the statement, please, Ms. Thompson?

I did a re-inspection on June 20th.

Not that far back, the part about the voiding.

Oh, it said, additionally, the certificate of appropriateness application was voided. The site plan was observed in the system requiring corrections for sufficiency.

I'm not sure about the voided part. I don't remember talking about that. Yeah, that's the first time I've heard that term. Yeah, that's weird. You can't. Sorry. Not yet. When Ms. Thompson's done, I can speak to what's happening currently in the process if you want.

I think we can say the following, which is that a certificate of appropriateness has not been issued yet. Correct. Okay. So maybe we'll stick with that. I'm sorry. Is there anything further, officer?

Compliance required for this address is a submission of sufficient certificate of appropriateness and site plan application on or before August 19th, 2026. Failure to comply by that date will result in a daily fine of $1,000. Additional compliance also to apply for and obtain an approved issue permit on or before November 30th, 2026, failure to comply with that will result in a daily fine of $1,000. All right.

So the city is asking for an August 19th compliance date for the certificate of appropriateness and the submission of the site plan, and then November 13th for the building permit. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

So Ms. Thompson, as a part of your investigation and review of this case, I believe you stated earlier that this was initially brought to your attention by the Development Services Department, correct? Yes, ma'am. And they provided you with specific photos. So when you're going through the exhibits, if you can identify the ones that were provided to you so we can mark them for identification purposes. And we'll have the employee from Development Services authenticate them. But just if you can note that in your presentation.

Exhibit 1 through 19 was taken by the historic preservation.

OK. But you can go through them if you're familiar.

Not quite.

OK. So what can we call you? Will we call you?

Exhibit 20 through 31 will be my exhibit.

So what we'll do is we'll recall you as a witness, and we'll go to Ms. Hoyland for now. That'll be easier. All right. duties and responsibilities review applications for and kind of be familiar with historic properties located within the city of Darby Beach yes yes which district is this the Delita Park historic district

This property is zoned RM, I believe, or RL perhaps. It's multifamily, bottom line. There are nine apartment units within two buildings on the site. There's actually two structures. This is a contributing historic structure built in the 20s, 30s era in the Spanish colonial style or Mission Revival. Mediterranean Revival is another style that's similar here. And the property owner who previously owned it passed away new owners purchased it Perhaps it was 2022 2023 timeframe It has a parking lot right on the corner of Lake Ida and Northeast 2nd Avenue. So it's the first property you see as you enter into the Delita Park Historic District and Yes. So my team and I had been contacted by the property owner to inquire about the process for renovation and updating to the site. So when we were we call those pre application meetings. and typically we go out and visit the site so that we can familiarize ourselves with the property i believe that this photo when i took this an application had already been made to change the windows around the entirety of the building and we were doing a site visit to inspect what the condition of the current windows were okay 2023 thank you all right so this is just to give context on what the property initially looked like before any modifications were made correct yes this is the secondary structure that houses a number of garage units on the ground floor and then a residential unit on the second floor this is the south elevation of that same accessory building facing lake ida road

And that was again in March. Yes. From that inspection that you talked to us about.

Yes, we've made several. This was the March 2023 time frame. Same with this photograph. You can see here the windows had wood surrounds. They were wood windows. You can see a stucco exterior that's a roof scupper at the top above the window, which drains the water from the roof.

Okay, so this is number five?

So when I walked up to the building to take a closer photograph of the larger main building, I was trying to take a photograph of the window, and my photograph showed the interior, which was fully demolished, and we hadn't been made aware of this activity. A blurry photo, but a similar photograph. This was taken a few days later. looking in through an upper opening where we could see the upper floor also. Same site visit with an interior demolition. Same time frame and this is showing a refrigerator on the front porch and other construction materials, a sofa from that April 4th time frame.

But it's also showing the condition of what the property in general was, correct?

Yes, on the exterior. Same description as previous. This is the south side of the building. That's one of the windows I had walked up to to take the photograph. This is taken from the street of the gravel parking lot that existed at that time. This was later in September, so we had had meetings with the applicant prior to this. And they had actually gone to the Historic Preservation Board to request replacing the windows. The board reviewed the request and indicated that they needed to keep the wood surrounds and denied the request because what the applicant was proposing was not compatible and consistent with the requirements of the LDRs for a contributing structure. So it was denied. The applicants then came in and submitted a building permit to replace the windows, and they didn't comply. I don't know how else to say it.

So let's just go back so we're clear. Is this original? Yes. Okay, so when we're talking about the green area, the wood around the windows. That's correct. All right. then here we are and this is what the property localized back in september well and this was denied by the historic preservation board for what they were trying to do so yes the this was the request it was denied the applicant submitted for a permit and i i don't i wish i had a better way to say this but they did it anyway that's sufficient city's exhibit 13.

Same exact photograph. You can see the wood surrounds are not there. The mutton pattern, which are the grids on the windows, they're different than what was original.

A closer picture of the patterns, but this is exhibit 14. This is just another...

Yes, this is the front, actually, the west side of the building facing Northeast 2nd Avenue, and the windows that were installed were not executed as designed on the permit. This actually, you can see these windows in the upper floor there. That was a screen enclosure that they enclosed with windows. That did not get an approval COA or site plan modification. And also, could you please go back? You can see a concrete blocked-in section of wall where a door was enclosed there. There's windows on the upper floor. all kinds of exterior alterations made that did not go through review with the board. This is at the same time period where the windows were being replaced. These actually, the grid patterns are closer to original, but we're still missing the wood surrounds on these. And so now this, which was a month later in October, is the entire stucco pattern on the building, the historic, we call it almost frosting. So it has that really kind of thick appearance. The stucco was completely stuccoed over, which is not standard practice and requires approval by the board to do so. Same here. There was just exterior alterations. In this one, there's an awning added above the doorways. The railings have been replaced, again, without approval from the board.

clarify, the older pictures from 2023 and so on, that was just to give context of what, a little bit of a history of the property and what was approved, what hasn't been approved, and what it looked like. Correct?

Yes, this has been ongoing with these applicants trying to... Alright, so we talked about 18.

What about 19?

A zoomed-in picture of 18.

Okay, perfect. Alright, so City's Exhibit 18.

This is LaToya's, yes.

At this time, the City would like to introduce City's into evidence. Thank you.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

Oh, my name is Simeon Kirilov. I'm the architect that was hired to help him get all these applications.

Can you spell your last name for me, sir?

K-I-R-I-L-O-V. Kirilov.

And you're an architect, sir? Yes. And the respondent knows that you're here on their behalf? Yes. Do you have any objections to the photographs the city would like to put in evidence so far? No. All right, so I'll admit one through 19. I think they have a few more, and then I'll let you talk.

Sure. So at this time, I'd like to recall Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson, I'm not showing you where it's been previously marked as City's Exhibit 20. And what is this photograph, and why is it significant to the case?

This photograph was obtained from realtor.com of the interior of the property, which I stated before, exterior, interior, site, were all alterations done without permit and the certificate of appropriateness. So this was pulled from realtor.com. This, I believe, is a kitchen.

area so we and and just to be clear we know that this is a modification because of an earlier photograph we saw with just kind of like wood studs that ms hoyland talked about correct yes ma'am and did you search to confirm that there were no approvals for this yes ma'am thank you you can proceed exhibit 21 is a another photo of the inside it looks like a closet with a mirror

Exhibit 22 is just another photo of the kitchen. Exhibit 23 is a photo of the living room area. Exhibit 24, another photo of the kitchen.

So before you go on from those photographs, is it within your standard course of business to check online realtor sites for property listings when you're doing investigations?

Yes, ma'am.

And did you indeed confirm that the address is indeed that property?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Exhibit 25 is the notice, posted notice, the first one posted on May 14th. Exhibit 26 is just a photo of the address taken on May 14th. Exhibit 27 is the posting for May 14th. Exhibit 28 is the noncompliance for May 20th. I mean, correction, June 20th. Exhibit 29 is the reposting on July 4th. Exhibit 30 is a picture of the address, 401, taken on July 4th. And Exhibit 31 is just the affidavit of posting for July 4th.

At this time, the city would like to introduce Exhibits 20 through 31 into evidence.

Do you, Carol, have any objection? No. No objections? So admitted.

So thank you, Ms. Thompson, and you stated earlier that this came in from a complaint from the Development Services Department, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

So I just want to recall Ms. Hoyland, just ask her a couple questions about the pictures. So as we look at the property today, was this approved? No.

None of the evidence in Ms. Thompson's presentation has been approved on any of the exhibits. The only thing that has been approved are windows. Again, the windows were not executed correctly.

So there was an approval from the board that they did not comply with the directive?

No. So the board denied the request, the COA site plan request for the windows. They denied it. Then the applicant submitted a building permit. And that building permit was to be executed the way they were supposed to be, with the wood surrounds and the grids and all that. That permit was issued, which we can approve administratively. So if you want to come and replace windows, we're not sending you to the board if you're doing like and kind and maintaining the character that's on the building. So that's what the permit was approved for. But then when they executed the installation, they did not execute it correctly. They did what they wanted to do. We've also had eight meetings with the applicant.

So they did what the board told them they couldn't do.

Correct. And we have had eight meetings spanning from February 2023 through April of 2026, either with the homeowners or the, I'm sorry, the building owners with them and their architect. And some phone calls with an attorney at one point that was going to be engaged but then didn't get engaged. So Over the course of this time, because it's been a while, we keep getting told that an application is forthcoming. And then it doesn't happen. And then more changes happen. So we're here today. Yeah, we're here. Yeah.

I'm guessing I can sense the city's frustration by the request for $1,000 a day fine. Correct. Yeah. It's almost as if I can read these things. So do you have anything further? The city seems very unhappy with your client, Mr. Kirilov.

Yeah.

So what's going on here?

Honestly, I couldn't tell you what is going on. But I can give a little bit of history because we were one of the first architects that were contacted to get the interior permit. So our office did the drawings for the – The original COA, which did get denied by the board. So then we did the drawings for the interior renovation, which I believe was submitted. And I don't know if the permit was issued. I think something happened with the permit because of the window issue that the interior permit was never closed out. But I know they pulled a permit for the interior renovation. because we did respond to comments and we did adjust the drawings. But once it goes into construction, it's out of our hands as the architects. I really don't know what happens afterwards. So I can't really say what happened between after I did the interior permit and then what the – Well, wouldn't the interior have to go through the – Not the interior because interior does not have to go through historic, but I'm not – Every permit comes through historic, yeah.

Yeah, that's my recollection. Yeah, but I don't think- I've been here long enough to know that they- I don't think the interior needs board approval, does it?

Am I able to respond to this? Sure, please do.

I think you're the only one that can.

If there's alterations made on an interior, there has to be an interior demolition permit, and then there has to be a myriad of permits, not just windows, AC- you know, or sub-permits, you have to have a whole permit submitted, which the historic team does review, like any other zoning reviewer does. So it's not, it's just that we're reviewing the historic ones, where current planning is reviewing the non-historic ones.

Did you have a chance to review the interior permit on this case?

So there are not, there is not an interior demolition permit that was submitted, and the extent of what occurred on the interior, there was not a permit for that. And when we were talking to the applicant, they stated, oh, we'll just submit it as part of the window permit. And we explained, you're doing more than a window permit. This is structural, plumbing, electric, mechanical, so your full MEP package. This is what we were trying to handhold and help explain, just get it submitted, because we think it can be approved. But the question the applicant has is, would it go to the board? If there was, we would have to review it. If there was any bedrooms changed or layout changes that happened on the interior, then possibly, because then we'd look at parking. But it's possible it could be administrative COA. So this is where the coordination, we were just really trying to help guide them so we can get this project off our desk as well. And we just, we haven't been able to get there. I will note that there is a COA site plan application that's been started in the system. It has not escalated high enough to review because there's missing documentation. So the process began, but we are waiting for a response to comments for minimum sufficiency.

How am I going to get a COA on windows that are clearly not consistent with what the board approved?

Well, they will have to make the request, go to the board, coordinate that with the board. And the board may say you need to be in compliance, whether it's cutting out some of the stucco to put in the wood surrounds or some other solution. But staff does not have that authority to make that call. OK, so. I just wanted to note, too, that the permit that was submitted There were some things of replacement of drywall and windows, but did not include plumbing, and you can clearly see in one of those photographs. I don't know if you could go back to that one right there. It's highly unlikely that there was an island with a sink in the middle of a historic kitchen. It looks nice, but not historic. There's clearly been some plumbing. I mean, it's absolutely beautiful. They did a wonderful job with their finishes and execution, so there's no shade to them on that. But this really needed to have a full permit review, especially for a multifamily structure.

Mr. Carol, it seems like you're here answering for the contractor.

Yeah, and I don't have any answers for that because I do know that we did a complete set of drawings with plumbing modifications, electrical modifications, a demo plan. We did all of that for the client. We were hired to do it. We gave them drawings, and after that, I have no idea what happened.

They sent you to answer for what somebody else did, huh?

Yeah. So I'm not aware that they did not pull any of those subpermits because I was under the impression that they did because I did respond to comments. You know, that's part of our contract. I do know that after this, they kind of stepped away from us and they did not engage us anymore until I think September. They came back to us when I had my first meeting with Michelle's team over the exterior, which I believe it was September. If I remember correctly, we had a pre-application meeting for this code violation. So then I started working with ownership. I did all of the details for the windows. Basically, we assessed for the After we had the meeting in September, we took about four months to kind of go over the project. We located everything that was wrong. We did all the details, and that's when we submitted it to staff back in May. And I have been working with staff just to address comments, missing things.

That's on the new COA.

Yes, and I believe that's where the voided one came in. Because one of the first applications I put in, I think it was only for the level one COA, and that one had to be voided because I had to go back in for a historic COA and

site plan approval so i think that's where that voided one was coming it was just the individual level one that i had to then change to a level one and site plan so mr carol i'm just to cut to the chase here the city is asking me to to give you till august 19th to get your coa and site plan applications in to get your permits by the 13th of november 30th 30th 30th i think i knew it was a three for the interior permits that they missed that's

That's reasonable. Regarding the COA, I'm not sure. It all depends on how quickly we can review it with the historical board. But he definitely has me engaged now to answer and respond to all those comments.

Like I tell all our applicants, if you run, we'll run with you.

And that's why it's important that Ms. Thompson noted sufficient application to make sure that all the required attachments and everything, because it's not acceptable for staff to even review until they have everything that they need.

So how close are we to the COA being ready for review?

So right now, the way the process works is they submit all their documents, application forms, and we review that for sufficiency, and then they submit their plans. It's kind of a two-part put into one. So we're at the point where they have some comments to respond to to get that application sufficient so we can review the plans.

And do you believe, based on your experience, August 19th is the sufficient amount of time to get this accomplished?

At this point, being that we're on July 16th, they can get the application submitted in this period of time. They literally could do this in a matter of days. He's already, Mr. Kirilov has indicated, he's already drawn the plans. So they need to get their documents pulled together and submitted. That's all we're asking. We're not asking to take them to the board by that date. We're asking them to get into the process so we can start reviewing.

All right. And the site plan, is that the same? Do they essentially?

These are a path that runs together. COA and site plan goes together to the board. What date are we saying for board review by?

I believe it was in October. I don't have the – Is that the building permit? The building permit is November 30th. Okay, got it. But you have – once you submit the sufficient application, then you have the board, which will be in October. And then after that – Correct. November, you have until the 30th.

So I understand the process correctly. So you apply for your certificate of appropriateness and your site plan applications. That goes to the review of your department. Assuming that you're OK with it, then they can subsequently apply for the building permit.

So after we review those plans and documents, go to the historic preservation board okay the board deliberates makes a decision and then assuming that's positive then it goes to the then it goes to city commission on the appealable list which takes under 30 days so this is why we've baked in all this time into october because realistically if they can get submitted we could get them on the historic preservation board maybe in september maybe in october i mean if it's a good submittal um and then have city commission appealable pass.

Okay. So the pathway looks like it has the right time.

We backed into it and gave ample time. And if they're at a point where something happens, board members don't show up to a meeting or we have to cancel and they have to go longer, they can always come back and explain that circumstance to you, sir.

And they can come back to me.

Yeah. We're okay with that.

Okay. So we're going to – Mr. Karloff, did you listen to the time frame that the – Yes. Yes, I did. Okay. And you're good with that?

Yeah, definitely.

Okay. All right, guys. Excuse me. Code 26000727. Make the following findings of fact and law. If I notice sufficient of the property in violation of the three code sections, certificate of appropriateness, building permits, and site plan applications, I hereby adopt – The recommendation of the city of August 19th for the certificate of appropriateness and site plan applications. October, was it October? What was the date in October? November. Yeah, that's the... All right, and for the November 30th deadline for the permits. A failure to meet either deadline can subject the property or property owner to a fine of up to $1,000 per day.

Thank you. Case number 12. Code 26-000-778. The property owner is Lakeview Loan Service and LLC. The registered agent is Corporation Service Company. The property address is 306 Southwest 15 Terrace. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams.

Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 306 Southwest 15 Terrace. Case number code 26000778. This property received a courtesy notice on May 19, 2026 for landscape maintenance for overgrown landscape and loose trash. The property was given five days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on May 26, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on June 1, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted at City Hall on June 22nd, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on June 22nd, 2026. An affidavit of posting and mailing and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. This property was cited for landscape maintenance. The property had overgrown landscape and loose trash and numbering of buildings and structure. The property did not have the street number posted on the building. As of July 16, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached 10 photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence.

Are both code sections outstanding?

Yes. Yes. The city is asking for an additional 10 days, which will be on July 26, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, then the city is asking for a $50 daily fine until compliance is achieved. You got to introduce the photos and evidence.

Oh, no, I got to go there.

Exhibit one. Exhibit one. Taken May 19, 2026. Shows the overgrown landscape.

It does indeed.

And loose trash that's right here adjacent to the sidewalk. Exhibit two. Taken May 19, 2026. Shows the overgrown landscape on the exact property. Exhibit three. is the Curtis notice that was issued May 19th, 2026. Exhibit four, taken May 26th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and loose trash. Exhibit five, taken May 26th, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and the property number that was right here, where the little square is located, is not there anymore. Exhibit 6, taken June 22, 2026, is the notice of violation that was posted. And you can see right here closer where the property number is supposed to be. Exhibit 7 is the affidavit of posting. Exhibit 8 was my re-inspection, July 7, 2026, which shows the overgrown landscape and loose trash. Exhibit 9, taken July 7, 2026, shows the overgrown landscape and the missing property numbers. Exhibit 10 is my affidavit of noncompliance. And I would like to introduce these 10 photographs into evidence.

Ian Norwich, appearing on behalf of Lakeview Loans. And you're an attorney, sir? Yes, sir.

And you have no objection to the photographs? No. Not objection, so admitted. Anything further from the city? The floor is yours, sir.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Well, first off, we are actually, we're still involved in active litigation. My client got title to the property in April. I believe certificate of title was issued in April 7th. There is an individual residing in the property, and we've filed a motion for red possession. That is set to be heard at the end of July, I believe July 23rd this month. So I'm just asking for additional time once we get the individual removed that we can go in and get vendors to, of course, clean up the property, put the number on the building, and bring the property into compliance.

How much time do you need, sir?

I would ask for 60 days.

Council?

My only concern is that I understand that someone else is residing in the property, but I don't understand why they can't clean the outside or put numbers on the property. A part of the numbering issue is this is a concern, especially for a fire rescue or emergency response, if something happens to the property and they don't have the number. So that's why that section of the code is important. Unless they're unlawfully able to go onto the curtilage of the property, I don't see why, as the owner, they can't accomplish it. But I'll leave that up to you, Mr. Wagner.

And we would request a 60 days.

Why can't you put the numbers on the building?

Honestly, I think it is a liability concern at that point. But it's still, we're litigating surplus funds with the actual original owner. This individual is maybe the individual who is the original debtor that's residing at the property. I'm not even sure. There's somebody residing there.

When's your hearing? On the 23rd? 23rd. So in theory, you could have this back in a week or two, huh?

Assuming that they issue the written, they get the person's removed timely and what have you.

I'll give you 30 days. If that proves to be a problem, you can come back and explain it to me. Case 26000778, I make the following findings a fact in life. I notice it's sufficient to find the property in violation of the listed code sections. I give the respondent 30 days to come to compliance or fine up to, I'm going to say, $100 per day measure.

Is that for the actual numbers, or is that for... Either one. I'm sorry? Either one. The landscaping as well.

Magistrate, I'd like to confirm the daily amount. Is it 50 or is it 100?

It's 100. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Case number 13, code 26-000-772. The property owner is Phillip Hoffman. The property address is 3916 Northwest 7th Court. And the code officer on the case is Rubenson DeJadin.

Good afternoon, Special Magistrate. My name is Rubenson DeJadin. Court of, Court of Enforcement Officer, I am here regarding code, code case number 26-00-0772, a maintenance of building violation located at 3916 Northwest 7th Court in Derry Beach, Florida, 33445. On May 30th, 2026, code enforcement officer, myself, Uberson DeJardin, observed a damage It damaged concrete wall along Lake Haida Road. The property was given 30 days to comply with the violation. An inspection was conducted on July 7th, 2026, and the property was still not in compliance. A notice of violation was issued on May 30th, 2026. The damaged concrete wall needs to be repaired, which constitutes a violation of City Code Section 7.8.3 of the land development regulations of the city of Delaware Beach. A building permit would be required for the repairs. I have had contact with the property owner, Mr. Hoffman, which is present today. A formal notice of hearing was mailed, first class and certified mailed, on July 1st, 2026 with the compliance date of July 2nd, 2026. The notice of violation was posted to the property on July 3rd, 2026. I have nine exhibits I would like to introduce as evidence. Exhibit number one. This is the damaged wall that located at 3960 Northwest 7th Court. This is just showing you that damaged wall and the will of the property along Lake Haida Road. Exhibit number two, that was taken on July 22nd, 2026. This is just a closer.

June 22nd.

I'm sorry. June 22nd, 2026. This is a just close picture that I took of the damaged wall. Exhibit number three, that's just showing the entire house. This was taken on May 30th, 2026, 3916 Northwest Seventh Court. Exhibit number four, this is just showing you a different angles of the damage wall along Lake Ida Road that was taken on June 22nd, 2026. Exhibit number five, that was the posting that was taken on June 3rd, 2026. Exhibit number six, this is just a photo of the posting. Exhibit number seven, this is just extra photos that was taken on July 7th, 2026. This is exit number eight that was taken of the damaged wall. That was also the same date, July 7th, 2026.

Thank you. I just have a couple questions before we introduce these into evidence. I believe earlier in your presentation you stated that this was mail certified.

First class certified mail.

Right, right. But is it June 1st, correct? I believe you said July.

I meant to say June 1st. Okay. My fault in that.

Correct. I just wanted to clear that up. And then also your affidavit of posting does state that you physically posted this as well on June 3rd.

June 3rd, 2026. Correct.

Correct. So they had from June, at least June 1st when you mailed it to June 3rd when you posted it to come in to comply with the compliance date by July 2nd. Correct. All right. Just wanted to make sure the dates were good. Thanks for the question. You're welcome. At this time, the city would like to introduce the eight exhibits into evidence.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

My name is Phil Hoffman.

And you own the property, sir?

Yes.

Do you have any objections to the photographs that the code officer took? No, I don't. That objection is so admitted. So what's going on with your wall?

Well, I just bought the house like nine months ago, and for a long time I wasn't even aware that there was all this damage on the other side because my side looks great. But finally I was aware of it, and so I thought, well, I've got to get this taken care of. And so I thought about taking care of it, but I should have done it before I got the notice. You know, that's my big mistake. But I had every intention of – It's usually a good idea. Yeah. I have every intention of taking care of that. And the only reason why it's not completed at this point is because I thought there was a survey to my house, and I was told there was. But it turns out nobody can find it. So I had to get a survey done.

You bought the house without a survey? Yeah.

Well, I was told that there was a survey, but I never actually saw the survey. So I assumed that they were right. And then I find out nobody could find the survey on file. So anyway, so then I said, well, I've got to get a survey. So it turns out that I called.

That's a little odd because title companies don't issue title policies without surveys.

Correct.

They usually do the title surveys. Yeah, I mean, in my past life as a real estate attorney, that's a little weird. But I don't know. Keep going.

Well, anyway, so I tried calling numerous different survey companies, and they all had a waiting period of three to four weeks. So I finally got the survey done.

That sounds reasonable. That sounds about right to me.

Yeah. So I finally got the survey done. Now, if I had had the survey, I probably could have completed it by now, you know, the compliance.

How much time do you need to fix your wall?

Well, I'm sure that I could probably get it done in 30 days, but it would be nice to have 60. Just so there's no hassle, no anxiety. But I'm sure we could get it done in 30 because he's already got the new survey, and he's getting the permits now, my contractor. And there's a big demolition job part of this because of this wall. Yeah, I would think so.

Yeah, so just based on the scope of the work that needs to be done, I did speak to the supervisor, and he's comfortable with 45 days. Oh, okay.

That seems like a good compromise. That sounds good. What fine amount was the city seeking here?

The city suggests that the property honor to be granted 30 days, actually 45 days, to apply and obtain an approved permit or a daily fine of $100 thereafter.

Mr. Hoffman, I'm going to give you the 45 days, but they do move quickly, so you should get your contractor working.

She's already working on it.

Fantastic. Case 26000772, make the following findings a fact in law. If I notice a sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of 7.8.3, which is the deteriorating wall. Respondent has 45 days to bring it to compliance by obtaining a permit or fine of up to $100 per day, my issue. Good luck, sir.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We now move to old business. Case number 14, 2017, 102363. The property owners are Sandra A. English and Annie Rowe. The personal representative for this property is Eric English. However, Timothy Boykin will be appearing on behalf of Eric English. The property address is 333 Northwest 8th Avenue. This is a request for reduction of lien.

What is Mr. Fortin's relationship to Mr. English?

There's aunt and great aunt. Sandra English and Mrs. Rove.

And then Eric English, the personal representative.

Well, that's her son.

He provided you with authorization to be here? Correct. Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, you said they're your aunt and uncle?

Aunt and family, aunt and family, you know, yes. Both of them are diseased. Eric is alive, you know what I'm saying, and he couldn't make it here. You know, he's in and out of the hospital, basically. Okay.

So it looks like this must be some type of probate if they have a personal representative.

Well, they're trying to do the probate. This year has been kind of rough. Well, I don't know if I go or you want me to talk. Is it okay?

Yeah, it's your hearing.

Yeah, it's my hearing. Okay, all right. It's been kind of rough with us this year, basically. 2005, we lost my grandfather, then-writer, and my aunt, Ms. Sandra. And... you know my brother he just passed in 2006 you know i'm saying it's like his own going circle of of things that this year of of things that are unexpected and now that the children has inherited the property um miss england was 85 we was trying to put it together uh keep it up the park and stuff like that and and it was 101 years old so you know things got a little bit rough You know what I'm saying? When the daughter tried to do it and then she passed and it is what it is. And right now, finance is not at the best place for either one of us. But we're trying our best, you know what I'm saying, to try to see whatever we can do to get this here. And hopefully Eric make it because he's in and out of the hospital. You know what I'm saying? And we don't want to have him to have a turnaround. You know what I'm saying? But life is not promised to anybody. And my diabetes got it.

I didn't know you was the man up here. I met you, and I was crying about I had to go get some beef jerky, you know what I'm saying, because my sugar was low. I was feeling kind of oozy, you know what I'm saying. But at the end of the day, you know, my sugar's bothering me too. So if anybody got a solution for that, help me.

I do want to disclose that these are public hearings, and this is recorded.

So if you don't want your confidential information. Well, I don't mind. If somebody got something to help me with diabetes, please help me.

but anyway I'm not sure I can help you with that I might be able to help you with this let me let me go to the city here what's the amount like I guess a short circuit do you want me to just go on and just tell you what is this a reduction yeah it's for a lien reduction so what is the total amount the total amount is twelve thousand one hundred dollars

Well, due to the circumstances that we are up under and the pressure that our family is facing right now and everybody is sick and is left on the kids, I'm at your mercy, basically. You know what I'm saying? Basically, we're trying. It's just hard. We really don't have finances right now.

In order for me to give you something, you have to ask me for something.

Okay.

If I ask you, Mr. Sir, can I have a $500 deduction to help me out greatly with the family and maybe – It can help me to buy diabetes medicine, just having fun.

But seriously, right now, anywhere between five to fifteen hundred. You know what I'm saying? But it's at your mercy. You know what I'm saying? But right now we are in a straight. We know what the taxes came up on it with the barriers. And the children are trying to just barely make it, you know what I'm saying, and stuff like that. So whatever you decide, I'm at your mercy. But under the circumstances that we faced all these crises, and this year alone, you know what I'm saying, and Eric is sick now himself. So we don't know which direction we're going. We just need to, as the children and family, to get this resolved and move forward.

What's the city's position?

The city's asking for 25%, which is $3,025 to be paid within 30 days, which is by August 15, 2026.

And for the record, I did, you know, because I want to make sure we have the right people. And, you know, I did. I was able to find the probate case. This case is an active probate. And Mr. Eric English is indeed the personal representative, even though it's not on the property appraiser website. It is. Sure, he has papers or letters of administration for that. I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll reduce it to 20%, which is $2,400. How much time do you need?

Well, let's say 60 days or something like that. 60 days it is. But can I ask you just a little bit more?

I already reduced it from what the city was asking. Okay. All right. All right. Case 2017-102363, I reduce it from $12,100 to $2,400 payable within 60 days. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, 60 days. You said 24? Yep.

$2,400.

And we make the check out to you all, right?

You don't make it out to me. You don't make it out to me, that's for sure.

Case number 15, 2021, 012065. The property owner is Issa Mesa. The property address is 937 Southwest 20th Court. The code officer on the case is Randell Strawn. This is a request for reduction of lien.

So good afternoon. So Mr. Right. Mr. Mezzer is here with his family. In the past, when Mr. Mezzer has appeared, we've had an interpreter, an Arabic interpreter readily available for him. However, our interpreter was unable to be here last minute under an interruption. Under circumstances that he cannot control and Mr Messer is here today He has requested that his 12 year old daughter serve as an interpreter in case he has something that he does not understand He advised me and during our conversation He seemed to understand what I was saying that he is fluent in English but there are some minor words that he had has minor issues with and I personally have concerns with a juvenile serving as an interpreter, and this was so last minute. Based on my professional experience, I don't believe this would be allowable. So what I'm suggesting is if he can indeed communicate this is a reduction hearing fully in English, I'm comfortable with that. If you swear him in, he tells you and you're satisfied that he fully understands everything. But I'm not comfortable with the interpretation from the minor.

I don't think I could swear in a minor to interpret. But, Mr. Mesner, I'm okay with proceeding with the hearing as long as you feel as if you can understand me okay. So what I'm going to ask you to do is if I use any words or say something that you don't understand to stop me, you can just raise your hand or something like that, and I will try and explain it with different words. But I need to know that you understand what I'm saying, right? Are you comfortable with that?

Yep.

Is the city?

I don't know if it's getting on record. Just want to make sure he's close.

Yes. All right. All right. Officer Strong, you want to introduce this?

Yes. Good afternoon. Randell Strong here today.

Just for our clarity, you should speak a little slower.

All right. I'm sorry.

Is it slow, slow? I understand. Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Slow.

Slow. You understand? You got me? All right. Yes, sir. Randell Strong here today for case 21-120-65 for the property at 937 Southwest 20th Court, originally found in violation on March 2nd. 2022, for not obtaining the permit to repair the home destroyed by a fire. The property was given 60 days to apply and obtain the permit, or $50 a day for noncompliance. The case was presented to Special Magistrate on August 21, 2024, where a $45,100 lien was recorded on the property. and a $50 fine. Continue. The case was presented to the special magistrate on April 2, 2026, where the case was determined to be in compliance prior to the hearing. No order was written. The home was sold as of October 30, 2025, by Mr. Isser Mezzor, which he's the new owner right now. And he assumed the liens and the accrued fines. As of today, the lien is an accrued fine in the amount of $74,573.96. The owner is here to ask for a reduction of fines or liens. So. All right.

I just want to make sure we're clear with the amounts. So there's an active lien for $45,100, correct?

No, we have a lien of $74,000.

I thought you said fine.

Fine, yes, yes.

But what is the recorded lien that we have on the property?

The recorded lien is $45,100.

Okay. And then after that, he purchased the property and made?

He pre-purchased the property October 30th, 2025.

And the property is currently in compliance?

The property is in compliance. Yes, it is.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

So the total outstanding, if I understood you correctly, is $74,570-odd, something like that? And $0.96. And $0.96. All right. Got it. All right, Mr. Mazur, what are you asking me for?

I'm asking what I told you. You have to, you, what you see, do it, do it. No problem. What you see good, do it. Now, from now, I don't have money. I'm already, I work in the job only $2,000 a month. But, you know, the contractor, he helped me. And other people, he gave me something, loan money. And where I work in, my job, and the boss has helped me a little bit. This way, I pay a lot of rent. And I have six kids.

I can see.

Yeah. Then I funded this house cheap, and I still work for this house. why is that my bill, all of them go rent, nothing I buy for the kids. Now maybe it's good for me, but I need help. You move this amount for me.

I remember.

So it sounds like he wants the amount removed. I did want to show... Just as an officer of the court, I did want to show the special magistrate the initial violation photographs. This is an older case. There was a lot of significant damage, and this is the property currently today. Prior to the hearing, I did speak to the director, and she authorized the following recommendation.

The citizen's jazz fines will be reduced to $2,500.

So she approved a recommendation to reduce the fines from the 70-something thousand. 74,000. 74,000 to 2,500 based on the significant amount of work that was done to the property in the short amount of time.

Mr. Minister, the city is recommending to me to reduce the fine from the 74,500 and Change. It's like $0.96, I think. $2,000, $2,500. Now, I know you said you don't have a lot of money. What I can do is I think that, in fact, not only do I think that's reasonable, I think that's very reasonable by the city because that's the vast majority of the fine. But I know you were telling me you don't have a lot of money. What I can do is I can give you an extended period to pay that. How long do you think you might need?

I know how long. As my job now is very slow.

You can ask me for whatever you think you need.

It's $2,000?

It's $2,500 total. That's all you have to pay of the $74,500. And I can give you time to pay that. I can give you a significant amount of time to pay that. You just have to ask me.

OK.

Does he need time to consult with his family?

No, no.

No, you can talk to your family about what you're thinking.

No, my wife does not work.

No, no, I thought maybe you wanted to consult with them, not as a part of your lack of understanding, but to consult with your family on whether.

You know what, I'm going to give you, I'll give you six months. Is that enough? Do you think that's going to be enough time for you?

I don't pay one time. I pay monthly, correct?

No, the city doesn't really have a method to take that. So what you're going to need to do is to save the money until you have the amount and then to pay it to the city.

You know what I'm going to do?

I'm going to give you 12 months.

No, what I would suggest that we do, I don't know about a year, but what I would suggest that we do is if maybe we can do a bifurcated order and split it into 60 days by this day, 60 days by this day, 60 days. That way if he wants.

It seems overly complicated.

I know, a year.

I don't know. All right. Let's do the six months because that seems to be reasonable. I have one question. Yeah.

I want to thank you and thank the audience. I want to thank you very much for what you did, and I want to thank all the audience. And I want to thank you for all the appreciation you gave us. But can you give us $1,500? Because believe me, some things are very difficult.

I am very grateful for what you did for him, and I thank everyone present as well as you for the appreciation you've shown us. However, would it be possible to adjust the amount to $1,500? Believe me, my situation is truly very difficult right now.

Sir, I understand that your situation is difficult. And the amount that the city recommended at $2,500 is substantially lower than I think that they would normally ask in this situation. Because the existing fine right now as we stand here is almost $75,000. So from going from $75,000 to $2,500, I think it's more than reasonable by the city. So I'm not inclined to reduce it any further. But I will give you the six months to pay it, okay?

All right.

Case 21012065 reduced to $2,500 payable within six months.

Anytime I pay him, correct, from now and six months. Anytime. Anytime. When I come here, I'm going to pay?

Yes, you come here and pay.

Anytime. Anytime before six months. But after six months, you can't.

After six months, it goes back to the original amount. You go more money.

Correct.

It goes back to the $75,000, so you definitely don't want that to happen.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.