Development Services Management Group - Special Meeting

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

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

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm going to ask at this time, if you haven't done already, please turn your phone or any other devices you have to silent. I'm going to also ask if you need to have a conversation or to discuss something with somebody to please take it outside the chamber. While it might not seem like it, sound travels pretty well in here and it becomes hard to do business while people are talking. Consent agenda.

Requesting approval of the consent agenda as written.

So approved.

Thank you.

I don't think we have any minutes, right?

No minutes at this time.

All right.

Let me call the regular agenda. First case.

Thank you. Case number one. Code 26-000804. The property owner is Faye Weisberg. The property address is 870 Bond Way. And the code officer on the case is Chantel Weisberg. Jane Baptiste.

Good afternoon. My name is Chantel Jean Baptiste, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Derry Beach. This property, 870 Bonway, was issued a notice of violation on June 18, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified and regular mail on June 23, 2026. In addition, both the property and city hall were posted on June 25th. 2026, an affidavit of posting is attached to this case. I've had contact with property owner. This case was cited for 2.4.13, subsection B, a building permit for a Tiki hut installed to a rear of property without an approved permit. As of August 6th, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached six photograph of the property to this case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit 1, this photo was taken on June 17, 2026, showing the tiki hut installed to the rear of the property. Exhibit 2 was the posting of property on June 25, 2026. Exhibit 3 is an affidavit of posting on June 25, 2026. Exhibit 4 was a re-inspection of the property and checked in a permit. No permit was applied for.

Exhibit 4, that's just the front of the home, correct?

The front of the property, correct.

Thank you.

Exhibit 5, taken on July 25, 2026. The Tiki Hut is still there. However, the vegetation kind of hides it, but I was able to see it and witness that I saw it still present. And Exhibit 6 is the Affidavit of Noncompliance on July 25, 2026. And the city is asking for an additional 30 days, which will be September 5, 2026, for them to come into compliance. If they do not come into compliance, the city is asking for $100 daily until compliance is achieved.

We'd also, again, would like to move these exhibits into evidence, six exhibits.

Is anyone here on behalf of the respondent in this case? Seeing no one, without objection, I'll admit in evidence the exhibits one through six. Officer Jean-Baptiste, you said you spoke with the respondent. Can you tell me what's going on here?

I spoke with her the day of posting, which was June 25, 2026. What she stated was she's not required to apply for permits because she was grandfathered in, and I told her permits has to be applied if a structure was built on the property.

Okay. And do you believe 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to bring this to the point?

May I ask for 60 days, which would be October 5th, 2026? Yes.

And you believe that 60 days is a sufficient amount of time to bring this to the point? Yes. All right, in case 26-000804, I make the following findings a fact in law. If I notice it sufficient, I'll find the property in violation of Code Section 2.4.13b, the building of the Tiki Hut, without a permit. Respondent has 60 days or until October 5, 2026, to bring the property in compliance or a fine of up to $100 per day. May I ask you?

Thank you. Cases 2 through 4. will be heard together as they're all for the same address, same property owner. So I'm gonna be calling them consecutively. Case number two. IR code 26000865. Case number three. IR code 26000931. Case number four. IR code 26000932. The property owner for all three of these properties is Two Trick Pony LLC. The registered agent is William M. Haycock Jr. And the property address for all three of the properties is 341 Southeast 2nd Avenue.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. So while we're calling up all the cases together because they have one single homeowner, Ms. Thompson is going to present each case separately because there are different facts. So thank you for that, and I'm not sure if the respondent is present today. So good, if he can come up. Thank you. She's just going to go through each case, and then we're still going to roll them separately because they have different facts and different photos. Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Code Supervisor LaToya Thompson, and I'm here regarding an assembly and special event conducted without the required permit. On June 13, 2026, during a routine vehicle patrol, code enforcement observed a large gathering at the property located at 341 Southeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. This property consists of the following businesses. One, two, three, four, five, six units. You have E and B, Haitian restaurant for unit A. Unit B, an unknown business. Unit C, mimosa hair design. Unit D, Able Port D restaurant. Prox Relax Barbershop, Unit E, La Rock Multiservice, and Unit F, Unknown Business. Officers observed loud music being played, alleged food sales, and numerous vehicles parked along the roadway in a manner that obstructed the streets. These activities were consistent with a special event as defined in Section 101.32 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinance. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the property owner allegedly failed to obtain the required special event permit prior to conducting the event. This is an alleged violation and is considered irreversible and irreparable, therefore no corrective action is applicable. I have two videos to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was issued on July 18th. Notice was mailed first class, mailed and posted to City Hall July 24th. The notice was posted to the property July 24th. Once again, this is an irreparable, irreversible violation, therefore no re-inspection was required.

Can you please repeat the case number again for this one?

Case number, case number 26000865.

Do you have any photographs or videos you would like to show?

Yes, ma'am. Exhibit 1 is a video taken on June 13th.

So could you describe what's happening in the video?

In the video I'm taking, I was trying to get down the street. As you can see, cars on both sides. And I'm taking video of the loud music and filming all the vehicles that are on both sides of the street as I'm approaching the property 341.

And did you observe while you were there vehicles obstructing entryways to either businesses or homes?

Yes, ma'am.

And in your opinion, based on the amount of videos, traffic, it appears that you're driving very slow. Did this be something that would require either our fire rescue department or police department to review to see if it would be safe for someone to drive down that street?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you.

Exhibit two is just a continuation of the video.

That was also taken on June 13th?

June 13th, yes ma'am. Thank you. In this video, you see a gathering right there in the area 341. They have a tent up. And of course, for safety purposes, we didn't approach. We just filmed.

And based on your observations, were there a significant amount of people?

Yes, ma'am.

And you can see it in the video. I mean, it's hard to count, but it looks like more than a handful. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And also a significant amount of vehicles on the street, in the roadway, in the parking area? Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Exhibit 3 is the posting of the properties, July 24th.

And you posted, and we're hearing all these cases together, so you posted everything at one time for this particular hearing?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Exhibit 4 is the affidavit of posting.

Okay, if you can continue on with the next case. Unless, I'm not sure, Magistrate Wagner, if you would like. the respondent to have the opportunity to answer any specific questions regarding this case before we proceed, because there are different facts.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please?

That's William Haycock. I'm the owner, operator, or managing member, I should say, not operator, of Two Trick Pony.

You're the registered agent for Two Trick Pony?

Yes, sir.

Is that your company?

It is.

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

No, I don't. And I understand that they all are very similar to this first one. So if you'd like to proceed, I have no obligation to wait to the ends.

Okay. All right.

So let's keep going then.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Code Supervisor Latoya Thompson, and I'm here regarding an assembly and special event conducted without the required permit. On July 10, 2026, during a routine vehicle inspection, code enforcement observed a large gathering at the property located at 341 Southeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach. The property consisted of six units. Officers observed loud music being played, alleged food sale, and numerous vehicles parked along the roadway in a manner that obstructed the streets. These activities were consistent with a special event as defined in Section 101.32 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinance. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the property owner allegedly failed to obtain the required special event permit prior to conducting the event. This alleged violation is considered irreversible, irreparable, therefore no corrective action is applicable. I have one video to present as evidence. A magistrate violation was issued July 18, 2026. Notice was mailed, first class, regular mail, and posted to the city on July 24, 2026. The violation was posted to the property on July 24, 2026. This is an irreparable, irreversible violation. Therefore, no re-inspection was required. This case is Code Case 26-00931. Exhibit 1 is the video taken on July 10, 2026. This was late in the evening. Yeah, late at night. Once again, for safety, we just recorded. We didn't come out of our vehicles.

Were there a lot of people outside when you went that day?

Yes, ma'am.

What about cars blocking entrances to businesses or roadways?

Yes, ma'am.

On the street? Yes, ma'am. Were you driving slow because you wanted to be careful? Yes, ma'am. Obviously, you don't want to hit anyone or cars, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And if there was an emergency situation, would this be the type of situation that the fire department or the police department would have to kind of assess if this were to be approved to ensure that there was property safety enforcement?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Are you at a standstill because of the amount of traffic here?

Yes, there was vehicles blocking. The officers couldn't move.

This is the same location? Yes, yes.

Yes, all these three cases, we just wanted to have, we didn't want to have to respond. So we just want to hear everything, and there are different facts for each incident.

This is about a month after the first case? Approximately.

Let's go.

Oh, this party.

Oh, this party.

Just to be clear, that's not the fire rescue. It's not in here. I didn't want it to seem like the fire department was having a hard time getting through this.

No, no, that's not part of this. That's the tenant center.

Just want to be sure.

That's the tenant center. Lightning.

Okay, you can proceed with your second exhibit.

Second exhibit is the posting of the property July 24, 2026. Exhibit three is the affidavit of posting.

Okay. Are you going to move? We'd like to move those three as evidence and an evidence.

Any objection? It's evidence now. All right, so admitted.

Good afternoon. My name is Cole, Officer Correction, code supervisor Latoya Thompson. I'm here regarding an assembly and a special event conducted without required permit. On July 17, 2026, during a routine vehicle patrol, code enforcement reserved a large gathering at the property located at 341 Southeast 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach. This property consists of six properties. Officers observed loud music being played, alleged food sales, and numerous vehicles parked along the roadway in a manner that obstructed the street. These activities were consistent with the special event as defined in section 101.32 of the city of Delray Beach code of ordinance. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the property owner allegedly failed to obtain a required special event permit prior to conducting the event. This alleged violation is considered irreversible, irreparable, therefore no corrective action is applicable. I have two videos to present as evidence. Magistrate violation was issued July 18, 2026. Notice was mailed first class, certified, and posted to City Hall on July 24, 2026. The notice was also posted to the property on July 24, 2026. This is an irreparable, irreversible violation. Therefore, no re-inspection was required. This case number is 26000932.

And this was just about a week after the last one, right? So it appears that this is within that, I would say, a little over a month period at least.

Yes, ma'am.

Three times within that period.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Exhibit 1 is a video of July 17th, 2026.

In this video, there was a U-Haul truck there.

and also showing the vehicles.

Were there food services? What was the U-Haul truck doing?

Once again, we didn't go out and investigate for safety purposes.

Based on your observations, did you observe a lot of people on the property?

A lot of people coming in and out of the truck.

And there was a lot of music.

Loud music.

And every time you went, there was some form of music.

Yes, ma'am.

And were there a lot of cars on the streets?

Yes, it is.

I mean, here I think you can see in the video that one car could barely make a U-turn.

Yes, ma'am.

Were there cars obstructing entrances to businesses or streets?

Yes, ma'am.

And would this be something that if they want to proceed with this type of party or event that the fire, in your opinion, based on our special events policy, that the fire department and police department would have to assess the danger or if there are any safety concerns prior to any approvals? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And why are you driving slow down the street?

because it's too many cars and you got cars trying to come past the truck as well. So without us causing damages to the cars parked on the side.

So there was a lot of congestion? Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you.

Exhibit two is a continuation of the video. Exhibit three is the posting of the property on July 24. Exhibit four is the affidavit of posting.

At this time, would you like to introduce the three exhibits into evidence?

I also, at the time of posting, spoke to the property The owner of EMB Haitian restaurant, she's here. She advised that there was death in families, and the gatherings was just like a come together, because we have deaths. They're feeding families and just being there for one another, what she explained to me regarding this. But I don't believe anything is in.

ordinance regarding or given exceptions today so let's talk about that and thank you for bringing that up this appears to be something that was happening routinely yes ma'am and based on your training and experience are you familiar with the city special events policy under section 101.32 of the city code of ordinances yes ma'am and That ordinance describes a special event as any organized or planned gathering persons having a common purpose, design, or goal that occurs for this specific incident on privately owned property that may have an impact on the services provided by the city, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Such as any health, fire, or police services, correct? Yes, ma'am. And the purpose behind the special events is to... to monitor or to assist if there's any particularly requirements for road closures or vehicular traffic is inhibited, which is what we saw on the video, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And anything outside of the normal uses of the streets? Seems like there was a lot going on. And based on your review of the code and your discussions with departments, this particular area or zoning wasn't approved for these type of events, correct?

No, it wasn't.

And... This isn't normal for this area or within this business district or this district in the city for these types of events to occur?

No, it's not.

Okay. And as you mentioned before, it's not necessarily the type of event. It's the effect that the event might have, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you.

Does the city have anything further?

Nothing further. After he presents his case, we'll have some recommendations. Okay.

Is it Haycook? Haycook. Mr. Haycook, the floor is yours. I want to start off by saying I don't deny or dispute any of the allegations here. I'll also say that I wasn't aware of any of it. I didn't approve it. I didn't participate in it. I didn't profit from it. So I have no dog in the fight other than the fact that it turned out to be my property. I was out of town for four days at the end of July.

That pretty much makes you the dog in the fight.

Right. Well, it's nothing to benefit here, is what I'm saying, only to lose, apparently. I was out of town for four days at the end of July. When I got back, I received eight notices all at once from the city. My question would be if it started. Well, before that, the next morning, I presented my tenant, Bertilde Lubris, a hand-delivered notice that she signed saying, that this is in default of the lease and that should it continue again, she'll be evicted, plain and simple. I don't want to pick a fight with the city and co-compliance, I take compliance seriously. I have a business for 16 years in Delray, Northeast 2nd Ave, so equidistant away from Atlantic Ave. So the question would be why a month after the first incident did I not receive a notice until they all came at once? I could have maybe tried to help stop it before it happened again. And I think that my notice of potential eviction should serve as how I take this seriously. I don't want to condone this, certainly. I spoke with Bertel, and she did mention that they were wakes for deceased members of the Haitian community. So I'll let her describe that more fully if she'd like to take the podium in a moment. But I'll also say that I'm here to comply and come into compliance with the city in whatever way I can. I'll also say that I have a restaurant, like I said, on the equidistant side where there are cars lining both sides of the streets, where there is congestion on a busy night and you're at a standstill where people are walking around freely. And I'll also say that the video shown, there are tenants and buildings on the other side of the street. I'm not sure of their operating hours, but I'm not sure all those parking spaces were full for people going to this party. So I'm also not sure of what constitutes a large gathering. How many people? And do we know that that amount of people was exceeded here? What constitutes loud music? Is it a decibel rating? Was that taken? There are things that I feel like are a little bit arbitrary. Again, I'm not here to deny or dispute it, but I just want to point out the obvious in that there are some kind of flaws to what's been pointed out. Can I?

Yeah, I'm trying to make sure I got all of it. He said a lot. I think there's really only a couple issues that we even need to address based off what he said. Number one, it's at the city's discretion of how we proceed with our enforcement. Now, obviously... You know, our goal is compliance here, and the city is not trying to, and our director's here, but we're not trying to, you know, we're just trying to get compliance. We're not trying to aggressively go after people. We weren't sure if this was, based off my discussions with the code officer, if this was a one-time situation or if this was an issue. And based on the reoccurrence, we noticed that this was an issue, right? And based on the observations, and, you know, I don't think it takes, you know, common sense you watch the videos you see a lot of people a lot of cars i mean at one point i don't know if miss thompson could go past five miles an hour down that street because it was so congested people were turning all types of ways um it's an obvious safety issue and um You know, the city's issue, the city's goal is to make sure that it's safe for any residents that are traveling through that area. And we do have a special events policy. I was careful to outline what was defined as a special event through Ms. Thompson's testifying and the categories that based off even the observations of the videos independently right each one you know it was obvious that if you look at the special evidence ordinance like this might be something that would require some traffic control right this might be something that traffic would be inhibited this might be something that or was something that is likely to attract substantial crowds which we saw a substantial crowd now you know, when you watch the video and the observations, it didn't look like a handful of people. There were several people in the streets, in the lots, so it doesn't look usual for that area. And then Ms. Thompson, I just want to ask her one question to follow up off what he said. Ms. Thompson, so you're a supervisor for this area, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And is it within your normal course and duties to routinely patrol this area?

Yes, ma'am.

And on... Based on your observations and your familiarity with that district, is it common for there to be, you know, that amount of people on the street or is it approved by the city?

It's not approved because they're businesses. They should have posted times.

But based on your observations of those independent instances for all three cases, is this something that would not be allowable within our special events?

It would not, no.

Right, without approval. Without approval.

This is not the customary and usual activities associated with this property?

Yeah, no. They have different businesses.

Right, it's not customary, correct? It's not customary. That's where I was going, thank you.

Can I just point out that one of the businesses is a lawful restaurant, so it would be customary to have customers? I'm not sure of the timing. I don't want to go back and forth. I just wanted to point out that.

Just to save everybody time, I don't think, based on what I observed, that that is – I do believe that what I observed and what the officer testified to is something that would require a special event permit. I don't think that's factually much in dispute here. But I do want to hear from the city about what remedy that you're seeking here.

Can I jump in real fast? I'm sorry. I think we're all on the same page. I do just want to make sure if the tenants wish us to speak, could she do so now before you make a remedy or –

You can if you'd like. I just want to give the opportunity if you want to. It's up to you to present your case. If you think it would help your case for the tenant to testify, then you can have her testify.

I would agree a special permit license should be in place. That's, I think, argued in what I handed to her to have her sign in eviction notices. So I do agree with that. I do agree with safety and compliance. So I just wanted to make sure that there was nothing being left out. But if you wish to move on.

It's up to you. If you think that her testimony would be helpful to your case, then have her testify.

Did you want to say anything or no?

Madam City Attorney, she's going to meet. She requested interpreting.

Do we have someone from staff? Yes. OK. Thank you. If we could swear in the translator to take the translator oath, please.

OK. Do you swear or affirm that you will translate a fair and accurate interpretation? Thank you.

Go ahead.

So, Mr. Petitsas, you can just translate verbatim, word for word, what the special magistrate just said and what I'm saying to...

Okay. Would you like for her to state her name? My name is Bertie Morizia.

Okay. What would you like to tell us?

She told the truth, but... People don't listen. When we have a week, you know, people cannot go to Haiti right now. Nobody can travel. When we have a week, everybody come in. They do some food. They put the chug. They put some jug and the food to give people free. That's a free food. It's not for sale. I don't have a business to sell all of the food like that.

Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry, ma'am. Are you the owner of E&B Restaurant, LLC?

Yes.

And... You're authorized to do business in the city, correct?

Okay. Right. Yes, she said.

And, in fact, you completed a zoning certificate of use that you received approval to do business, correct?

Yeah, because I have the certificate for the restaurant.

For the restaurant, right? Yes. And a part of your approval, you're approved for an eight-seat maximum restaurant, correct? Yes. And your normal operating hours are from, I believe, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., correct?

Yes.

Right. So all of these videos are after 11, right? Yeah. And there's way more than eight people, correct? Yes.

No, that's why inside we have a chair.

Right. Okay. So you're saying that it's eight people inside, right? Yes. But a part of your approval was that your restaurant was limited to indoor dining, correct?

Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay.

At this time, the city would like to introduce the zoning certificate of use. I'm just going to go over and show them.

And we can make this as just the last exhibit for each case. OK, do you want to show both of you guys if you want to take a look?

Really?

Okay, thank you. I don't know if they have checked.

It's a record kept in the order course of business, so I'll admit it.

Okay, thank you. No further questions.

Ma'am, is there anything else you would like to tell me?

I need a permit when I do the work. If I can have a permit. She wants to apply for a permit.

That would be something that we can discuss with you. We have staff members, and we're more than willing to help you out with that.

Okay. All right, ma'am, you can have a seat, please.

So what is the city asking for?

The city is asking for each... Violation or each infraction, a one-time fine of $5,000 to be paid on or before September 6th within, well, within 30 days.

So the city's asking for the maximum fine here?

When you total it, $15,000. It's $5,000 each.

We'll leave it, obviously, leave it up to your discretion. This was an issue, a major issue, as you can tell from the use. It was supposed to be a small restaurant with a small amount of people, indoor only, operating at a certain amount of hours, and then it turned into something massive.

Well, I don't think there's any, well, I'll let Mr. Haycock respond to the request.

I just think it's a large fine, considering I found out all the notices at once. And if I were to pass this fine along to the tenants, she's going to be bankrupt and out of a place to work. And I mean, I think that's a bit egregious.

The notice issue, the first instance that you noticed was 613. At least that's what I wrote in my notes here.

Yes.

And notice was done by posting and by mail?

Yes, posting, mail, city hall.

And you said you didn't receive the notice from the first?

I received these on Friday, last Friday.

I think what he's saying is we brought all the cases together at once. It wasn't individual, so we noticed everything at once. Like we wrote up all the violations at once.

Oh, so the notice of hearing you got.

Right, that's what he's saying. Like we observed, we made observations.

There should have been a notice of violation that you would have gotten back in June.

I did not. Everything I got relating to these violations was at one time when I opened the mailbox on Friday. I was gone for four days.

We don't dispute that we noticed. We wrote up all the violations at once for efficiency. We wrote them all up. There's different incident states, and then we serve them all at one time.

And I'm just curious as to the previous code case where they allowed an additional 60 days to comply, why there can be no sort of Flexibility here and moving forward.

The city is pursuing this differently than the – I understand. So there's – well, it's a good question, so it's worth answering so that you understand. In most cases, code cases proceed along a violation and then fixing the violation. What the city alleged here, and you probably heard it because they alleged it in every case, is that – this isn't fixable, that it happened and that it's irreparable, essentially, that it can't be undone. And their argument is that each time this happened, it created a danger to the city, which is the possibility that, you know, the Emergency personnel could not access the space. The city was unaware to plan for the possibility this could go wrong. So they're alleging this is irreparable and irreversible, which allows them to seek an immediate fine. If I treated this like the previous cases, it wouldn't make a lot of sense, right? Which I'd say you have 30 days to correct. Correct what? It's not happening, right? It already happened. And so they're seeking it as an irreversible irreparable. Though I do want to give you a chance to talk to that. What the city is seeking is a $5,000 fine for each violation, which would be $15,000. I wanted to give you a chance to speak to that particular issue.

I think that correlates to... not having the opportunity to cure because I wasn't aware of the notices until they all came at once. Even so, if it was one instance that I did get notice of and it was $5,000, I'd still try to treat it as I'm proving to you my opportunity to try and cure by taking control of the tenant and making sure that they cure and that we don't have this issue moving forward. I'm on the same page. I'm with compliance. I'm with code enforcement. I have been for many years. I mean, I just think it's a large swing to take at someone when we're trying to be on board. And I'm doing what I can here.

I am a little concerned that you didn't get the... So I get that the notice of hearing all arrived at the same time. But the notice of violation, according to the testimony of the code officer, was mailed back in June. Both...

Hold on one second.

My notes are posted and... Let me confirm with her.

Um... Right, so just for clarification, I did confirm with Ms. Thompson, and for cases now, we don't send out separate notices of violation. We do one formal notice of hearing, which has the violation on it and the hearing date. So he received notice of everything at one time. So just for clarity, as an officer of the court, I want to say that the first incident, he didn't receive notice after that incident, right?

she had her notes she wrote up all the cases at one time and then they were all noticed at one time so his argument that he didn't have a chance to correct is actually the first yeah all right now this is what i think um i think each instance did constitute a violation of the code i think they were assemblies and special events that were not permitted i think that's clear and that finding is i'm compelled to make that finding because that's what the facts say is it irreparable and irreversible in nature yeah the whatever happened happened and they can't unring that bell um does it warrant a five thousand dollar fine for each I think the circumstances here, I do take that into account a little bit. And so I'm going to reduce the fine to $1,000 per instance. But I will say this as we speak here. Everyone is now on notice that this can't happen without a permit anymore. So if this shows up in front of me again, I will hit it with a maximum fine because everyone should know better at this point. All right. So I'm going to assess a fine of $1,000 per instant. And I will leave it at that for now.

Thank you. Case number five. Code 26. 000797. The property owners are Edwards Atlantic Avenue LLC, NRAI, Services, Inc. is the registered agent. The property address is 601 East Atlantic Avenue. And the code officer on the case is Reggie Williams.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Can we just go back to the last three cases? If you could state a time frame for which the fine has to be paid within.

Is Mr. Haycock still here?

Oh, can you, Joe? I'm so sorry to call you back in, but we...

The city wants a time certain on the payment, so what would be a reasonable time for you to pay this?

Allow me. Okay. It's $1,000 per incident, $3,000 total.

Okay.

When do you want to make it? When do you want to make it? When are you able to make it? Can you offer some sort of guidance as to what the allowable acceptance would be?

I will tell you that I will try and be as flexible as I can be, but you have to ask me for what you need.

Would $1,000 a month for three months be okay? That would be tough for me.

what what could work 250 not okay 250 per month with 250 per month for a year that's a long time i mean i understand the circumstance so you know we i believe we wanted 30 days but we would um understanding the circumstance um in the situation um

I'll give you 180 days.

So six months. Thank you very much. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to recall, call the case over for case number five. You don't have to call everything over. We can start. We're there. Okay.

Is anyone here on behalf of that one?

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Reggie Williams, clean and safe code enforcement officer for the city of Derry Beach. I'm here regarding property 601 East Atlantic Avenue, case number code 26000797. The property was issued a notice of violation on June 16, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on June 22, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on June 23, 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 maintenance of building for the damaged decorative muttons on the windows and the exterior markings on the building. As of August 6, 2026, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached nine photographs of the property to the case that I would like to introduce into evidence. Exhibit one, taken June 15, 2026.

So if you can describe what the violation is on the photo.

So the damage buttons on the windows, you see the outlines right here, they're missing. And over here. And over here as well.

So to be clear, they're supposed to look like squares. Yes. So if you go down, because I mean, it may not be that obvious.

Yeah, they're supposed to look like this one in the middle. Right.

So for instance, the one on the top with that arrow. Right here. It's supposed to be that. It's supposed to be like three squares. Right? One, two, three. But the mutton is the material that is in between. Yes. The brown material.

Yes. The window is damaged. All right.

We just want to make sure we're clear. Okay. Thank you.

And also the exterior markings located right here. Exhibit 2, taken June 15, 2026, shows the same damaged muttons and exterior markings on the outside of the building. Exhibit 3, taken June 15, 2026, shows the damaged muttons. And you can see here exterior markings that piled up. Exhibit 4, taken June 23, 2026, is the posting of the notice of violation. Exhibit 5 is the affidavit of posting and mailing. Exhibit 6 was the re-inspection of the damaged muttons and their stereo markings on the building. Exhibit 7, taken July 26, 2026, is the same photo showing the damaged muttons and their stereo markings. Exhibit 8, taken July 27, 2026, shows the damaged muttons. And Exhibit 9 is the affidavit of noncompliance.

At this time, I'd like to introduce the nine photographs into evidence.

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

My name is Natalie Inclan. I'm the property manager representing Edwards Atlantic Avenue.

Can you spell your last name for me, please?

I-N-C-L-A-N. Inclan? Yes.

And you're the property manager?

I'm the property manager, yes.

Do you have any objections to the photographs or documents the city would like to put in evidence? All right, without objections, so admitted. Does the city have anything further?

No, we just want to be clear. This is a maintenance of property violation, correct?

It's maintenance of building, yes. So it's for the damaged muttons and the exterior markings, the dirt, and that needs to be cleaned.

When you say exterior markings, are you talking about, because I just want to make sure we're clear.

got to hold the button down yeah okay here underneath the windows there's a lot of dirt build up grime yes all right thank you the city is actually for an additional 30 days which will be on september september 5th 2026 for them to come into compliance if they do not come into compliance then the city is asking for 150 daily fine until compliance is achieved

So the city says your building is dirty, and I see I learned a new word today. It's missing some muttons.

Okay. So just like the previous case, this was the first and only violation hearing notice I received from Inspector Connerly. So I don't think you were the original inspector. No, yes, he was the original.

Previous, yes.

So I have been in contact with him, and I have numerous e-mails and phone calls with him, and he knows that I've been working on getting – Pricing so as a property manager representing owner. We obviously want everything to be pretty We want everything to be maintained. I've been in this property for only less than eight months So part of the eight months I've been assessing whether it's operations maintenance or even my own staff I do realize it doesn't look the prettiest and those markings could just very well be the expansion joints or any type of rebar that's probably behind the stucco so it's something I'm gonna have to look into further the markings along the balcony is just you know debris coming off the the the balcony so it's just a matter of proper maintenance the ones along the scuppers There's cast iron behind the scuppers, so it probably wasn't sealed correctly. So obviously there's going to be an ongoing issue if I don't do it properly. So as a property manager, I do have to do my due diligence in getting three contractors out, putting a scope together, putting a maintenance plan together. How long have you been working on this? I'm sorry?

How long have you been working on this?

Since probably like mid-July. I mean mid-June. So I've obtained already two bids.

How long do you need to bring the property into compliance?

I am respectfully requesting 60 days. And the only reason is because those muntins Those are the original design. I don't know if they came off during a storm or if it's just the adhesive on it. Those are specifically cut custom. So it's a matter of going to the subcontractor to actually get that. So it's going to take a little bit of time. It's not something that's easily in stock. It's something that has to be fabricated. So, again... respectfully requesting a minimum of 60 days. If it's something that you guys can extend 90 days, that would be greatly appreciated. But with that said, I then have to go to ownership, present it, have her approve it because we want to maintain the original design. And although the building is nice and pretty and it's under six years old, it's a very challenging property. It's right on Atlantic Avenue. In order to do that, repairs I think I'm gonna be required to pull permits and the permitting process here in city of Delray is not fun we're also building next doors so I'm sure you guys are very fully aware that we are we're actively building and we're actively you know in the city of Delray conducting business and it's my intention to definitely comply with this notice of violation and the owner is very honorable So I'm respectfully requesting a minimum of 60, 90 days.

So I did speak to Mr. Lee, who was the original code enforcement officer on this case, and he did, you know, fairly say that they have been working on this since June. You know, we're in August now. You know, based on the type of work, it doesn't appear that There might be permanency. I'm not sure. I will leave that up to development services staff to determine. But the rest of the pressure washing, all of that, that should not take 60 days. So we will, understanding that, we're open to a longer period, maybe 45 days. But I just don't know. The city was initially asking for 30. So we will, you know, we're okay with a little leeway because she has been working and has been in constant communication with Mr. Lee.

I'm going to give you the 60 days.

Thank you.

It doesn't mean you have to take the 60 days.

No, I understand.

But I'll give you the 60 days because I know sometimes you can run into things that make it take a little bit longer.

Run into things and pricing. And it is right on Atlantic Avenue, so I'm hoping I don't need to pull the permits. With that taken into consideration, I can definitely do it within the 60 days.

All right. Case 26-00-0797. I make the following findings of fact and law. I find notice sufficient on the property in violation of 7.8.3, which is the muttons and the markings on the building. I give the respondent 60 days to come into compliance or fine up to $150 per day in the issue.

Thank you. So 60 days, and then after that, 150?

Which would be September 5th, 2026. Or no, October. October 5th. Okay.

October 5th. So, and really quick, so, like... Like you said earlier, so we don't get, like, a first notice. The violation and the hearing notice comes together because that's one of the things that I was questioning with Mr. Connor.

So the notice was sent on, you know, at a certain time, June 6th, and they had until it has a compliance date on there. So we do give you time to come into compliance before the hearing. Right.

okay but i'm just so confirming so what you received is gonna it's gonna be the violation plus the hearing right and if you would have came into compliance it would have been closed out you will have to come to the hearing but we send them out together just in case yeah no it's it's very hard to do extensive work within 30 days so i appreciate this you got your 60 days good luck thank you so much and what did you say what

Case number six, code 26, 000844. The property owner is Clara Rose. The property address is 107 Southwest 8th Court. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jinks.

Is anyone here on behalf of this one?

Can we have one moment, quick moment?

Yep.

So I was just speaking with the supervisor on this Clara Rose case number, code enforcement 26000844, and it looks like the compliance date was actually August 17th. So we're going to request to continue this to the August 20th hearing.

All right, we set for August 20th.

Thank you.

Maybe you'd notice them for the right date, too.

She's still outside.

Pardon? Is that the one that's outside? No. Oh, it's a different one.

It's a different case. Want to call 7-1-1?

Yes, if you can call. You can keep going. Sorry.

Go ahead, Lynn.

Case number seven. Code 26-000-895. The property owner is Adam L. Jasinski II. The property address is 108 Southwest 8th Street. And the code officer on the case is Travis Jinks.

Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent, Adam Jasinski? Yes. For the record, I don't see anyone.

OK. Who's the code officer for the case? Jinx.

Officer Jinx, whenever you're ready.

This is the next case. No, this is this one. This is Adam Jasinski. Correct.

Good afternoon. My name is Colt Officer Travis Jenks with the City of Delray Beach. I'm here regarding property 108 Southwest 8th Street, case number 000895. This property received a courtesy notice on June 25th, 2026 for outside storage and absence of clearly posted number street address on the property. The property was given five days to come to compliance. An inspection was given and conducted on July 2nd. and the property was still not into compliance. Notice of violation was created on July 10th, 2026. Service was accomplished by certified regular mail and posted to City Hall on July 14th, 2026. In addition, the property was posted on July 11th, 2026. An affidavit of posting, mailing, and first affidavit of noncompliance is attached in the case. I have not been in contact with the owner of the property. The property was cited for 7.1.5 numbering and 7.8.3 maintenance of building. As of August 5th, the property has not come into compliance. I have attached seven photographs of the property of the case that I'd like to introduce you to.

Thank you. You can go through there.

Here we have the outside of the home where you're not seeing the address. Also, you'll see underneath the carport there is a bunch of storage. Here is a close-up in Exhibit 2 of the outside storage taken on June 25th. Here is my re-inspection on July 2nd of the same location, missing address numbers, as well as a glimpse of the outside storage underneath the carport.

Okay, so if you can go back. So Exhibit 3, it has the numbering on the mailbox, but the code said it has to be on the building? Yes. Okay, thank you. Or the structure?

Yes. Here's another close-up in Exhibit 4 on July 2nd of the outside storage there. It's a cabinet, grills, some chairs, a bunch of other items as well. Here is the posting of notice of violation in Exhibit 5 on July 11th. Here is the affidavit of posting on July 11th as well. Here is the affidavit of noncompliance as of July 25th. And that is all.

So we have the maintenance with all the storage, and then we also have the numbering on the building, correct? Correct. Okay, thank you.

You want to submit those in evidence?

Yes, please.

That objection so admitted. So this is two issues. This is the numbers that are on the mailbox but not on the structure. And then there's the outside storage under 7.8.3, is that?

Yes, it's the 7.8.3 and then the numbering under 7.1.5 of the LDRs. Okay.

And what remedy were you seeking?

The city is asking for additional 14 days. That would make it August 20th to come into compliance. Okay. If not, we would like $100 a day until compliance is achieved.

So all they really have to do is move the junk and put the numbers up?

Yes.

Yes.

The outside storage.

I'm sorry. Move the outside storage?

No words. Yes, sir.

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words. I apologize.

Have you had any contact with the homeowner? No, sir.

Have you seen any evidence that they've responded to your notices? No, sir. And you do believe that the 14 days is a reasonable time to accomplish the moving of the materials? Yes, sir. All right. Case 2600895, I make the following finding as a fact in law. If I notice a sufficient amount of property in violation of code section 7.8.3, there needs to be numbers on the structure in 7.1.5. Actually, let me say that backwards. 7.8.3, outside materials need to be removed from the carport. And 7.1.5, there needs to be numbers on the buildings responding to have 14 days or until August 20th to bring the property in compliance or a fine of $100 per day may issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to old business. Case number eight. This is a request for reduction of fine. Case number code 25000399. The property owner is 2402 Seacrest Development Partners, LLC. The registered agent is Carly Master. The property address is 2402 Seacrest Boulevard. And the officer on the case is Supervisor Latoya Thompson.

Originally found in violation on January 12, 2026 for work without permit for a pickleball court. Given 30 days to come into compliance or $100 daily fine. On June 18, 2026, property came into compliance. There is an accrued fine from May 3, 2026 to June 18, 2026 in the amount of $4,600. The city's suggesting that 25%, which is $1,150, to be paid within 30 days, which is September 5, 2026.

Sir, can you tell me your name, please? Yes, sir. I'm Michael Wood. I'm here for the applicant, landowner.

You're the retired attorney from Virginia. Yeah. Did you read the- I did.

I just want to make sure. I mean, and I appreciate the offer of the reduction, but I- If I could, if you read the bill of particulars, I mean, we were working diligently with staff to come into compliance with Pickleball after the fact permit. And oddly enough, I mean, one of the things, once the permit was submitted, we had to offer up a survey. So anybody in this room, including any building official, knows surveys aren't done overnight. And our hearing date, if you look back, was for April 2nd. And prior to that, I had two previous extensions from Jude McKay at that time. He had granted us two extensions. And suddenly he disappeared, didn't contact us, didn't let us know that he was taking this matter to an actual resolution. When I found that out, I wrote the letter that you see in the file. I asked to meet with Mrs. Pryor and I think Phil on site to say I was taken aback. In Virginia, we wouldn't practice law that way. You'd call somebody back. I was chasing him down to let him know and emailing and calling him to let him know we were going to come into compliance. And I've been doing permits down here since I retired from Virginia for 25 years. I mean, permits are tough to come by in any jurisdiction, as we all know. And we diligently got the surveyor out on April 8. We were trying to let Jude know that. That's why we asked for the extension. He didn't seem to understand the process, is what I took from that. So I appreciate the offer of a reduction. I do. I know it's genuine. But personally, I feel, given the facts and what happened to this owner, the magistrate should entertain Maybe a further reduction.

Well, in fairness, it's worth pointing out that it didn't happen to your owner. He built a pickable car without a permit.

He understands that. Yeah, I do.

I mean, it wasn't the city of Delray that created the problem here.

No, no.

We agree. Let me say, I don't understand the timing here. Let's see the order, which has my signature on it, so obviously it's my order. is on April 13th, but I thought the testimony was that the violation occurred back in January? It did.

Right, and I think that's kind of like what he was saying, is that Mr. LeConte, who is the initial code enforcement officer, had given Mackie, Jude Mackie, had given two previous extensions before bringing it to code enforcement hearings, so it didn't actually go to hearing until April 2nd. And that was as a courtesy of the city, so... three months the city was working with him or working with his client. And then this matter came before the special magistrate on April 2nd on a properly noticed hearing. Findings were made that this had occurred in violation of the LDR section and it was found to be in violation. And then from April 2nd, the respondent was given another 30 days to comply. to May 2nd. So there had been communications about what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance before this even went to hearing. But after, you know, the property did not come into compliance, it was eventually brought to a code enforcement hearing where he was found in violation, given 30 days. And then after that, I think the compliance date was May 2nd. And then the property was brought to compliance on June 18th. So, you know, It still took a little time. So it wasn't as if they were unaware or the city hadn't worked with them. We actually did work with them prior to bringing it to hearing.

Also note that the permit was filed on 3, I think it was 3. Four, three, two, prior to the first hearing date. The minute we were alerted, we filed for the permit. Obviously, you've got to get comments back from the building department. How come nobody came to the hearing? Well, that's what I'm saying to you. I had been communicating with Jude McKay for the first two extensions. I was reaching out to him prior to the hearing. I was out of town on the hearing date. That was part of it. And the owners are not locals. So, you know, it was one of those things where we were desperately trying to reach the guy, and the guy didn't call back. The next thing we know, he doesn't work for the city anymore.

So, you know, it's... Well, it's never, I mean, as an attorney, you know, it's never a good idea not to show up for the hearing.

Well, no, but I...

I'll reduce it to $1,000. How much time do you need?

30 days.

$1,000, 30 days. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

I think that's it, right?

That's it.

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

Thank you.