Magistrate Hearing - Special Meeting

Hearings for today for the Village of Wellington. Today is Thursday, August 20th, and the time is 9 o'clock. My name is Holly Hahn, and I am the Special Magistrate for today's hearings. Do we have any opening comments, Mr. Khalil?

Yes. Good morning. The Special Magistrate will hear all cases on the agenda. The meeting is recorded and televised on Wellington Government Access Channel 18 and Comcast cable. Testimony from Wellington staff and the respondents will be under oath. Although formal rule of evidence do not apply, fundamental due process shall be observed. The special magistrate may ask questions of either party to determine pertinent facts. The code compliance officer will present his or her case to the special magistrate. Service of all required notices associated with the case and all photographs presented by the code compliance officer will be entered as evidence unless otherwise disputed. Upon completion of the presentation, the respondent will have an opportunity to comment or cross-examine. The special magistrate will issue findings of facts based on the testimony presented. If the special magistrate determined there are one or more violations of Wellington codes of ordinances, he or she may issue an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation by a specific date. The Special Magistrate may also assess costs that have been incurred in the prosecution of a case. In most cases, costs assessed by the Special Magistrate are due and payable to Wellington within 30 days from the date of this hearing. Failure to remit payment as ordered may result in a lien being filed against the property. In the event the violation is not corrected by the date specified, the order will also provide a date for a fine certification hearing. No additional notice will be provided to the respondent. A lien will be filed against the property if the assessed fines are certified by the special magistrate. The special magistrate may also issue a cease and desist order. If issued, the respondent is placed on notice that if the same violation reoccur within five years, staff may notify the respondent of a hearing for a repeat violation. At the hearing, staff will request the special magistrate assess a fine. The primary object of a hearing is not to unduly penalize anyone, but to obtain compliance with Wellington courts and ordinances in a timely manner. Cases where the respondents are present will be heard first. When the respondent comes to the podium, please sign in, state your name, and indicate if you have been sworn in. Please ensure all cell phones are turned off or in silent mode at this time. The special magistrate will now swear on all persons who will testify.

All right. If everybody could, excuse me, stand, who will be offering testimony at today's hearing? And raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truthful truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Thank you very much. You may be seated. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda?

Yes. We have one deletion, item number six on the new business, NOHCC708-2026.

All right. Great. Thank you. All right. Hearing no other additions or deletions, I hereby approve the consent agenda, and now we are ready to move on to new business.

Are we going to go with respondents? We have item number one, undefined certification, NOHCC 1891-2025. Stefano Vegas is the code officer.

Officer Stefano Vegas, Code Compliance, Village Wellington.

Good morning.

Case number NOH-CC-1891-2025. Respondent name Scrivener Village Association Incorporated. Property address 9768 slash 9744 Scrivener Lane, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was May 21st, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct a violation of Voluntary Land Development Regulation Sections, Wellington 7.8.7.C, Hierarch Trees and Sweat Area in Front of Various Properties. several properties found in violation, and 7.8.2.AG, missing required street trees property not per the development approval. On or before July 17, 2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order was scheduled a fine certification hearing on August 20, 2026, if the public compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. Inspection on July 20th, 2026, found the property still in violation of Voluntary Land Development Regulations Sections 7.8.7.C and 7.8.2.AG. A follow-up inspection on August 10th and August 17th found the violation still exists. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspections. I request the photos be entered in as evidence.

Yep, so entered.

A PACER search fund respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list of pendants filed against his property. Contact with a representative. Staff has been in contact with the property manager and contractor. Staff provided the property manager and contractor with the information that they needed. It was communicated that information about the work that needs to be done by the contractor needs to be provided to staff as they do not have an approved permit. There was a previous vegetation removal permit applied for on August 7, 2025. That's 2025-0334 VRP. Due to no plan being submitted, it was administratively withdrawn. No VRP has been applied for or plan submitted. On August 18th, 2026, the attorney, Mr. Cortez, asked for additional time. However, due to the nature of this case, how long it's been active, and a lack of any plan being submitted, his request was denied by management. Mr. Cortez was advised to attend today's hearing to state his case and ask the magistrate for additional time.

Okay, great. Thank you. And in the matter of Wellington versus Scribner Village Association, case number NOH-CC-1891-2025. Is there anyone here on that matter?

Larry Cortez on behalf of the Scribner Village.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So what is it you want to tell me about this?

Okay. There is no factual dispute. So the complexity that Scribner Village has in this is that it's, I think of it in terms of wagging a dog or an attenuated process in that each of these trees is, as between Scribner Village and the homeowners, is a homeowner responsibility. So what Scribner Village has done, they have not ignored this. And I know from the village of Wellington's point of view, it has gone for an extended period of time. But what they've done is they've... attempted to compel homeowners in order to correct these violations on their own because these trees are their responsibility. Some homeowners have complied. Some have complied perhaps half-heartedly. And some, as you can see in some of the photos, have not yet complied. So in that part of that process, now that they've declared those violations and those violations uncured, again, as between Scribner and the homeowner, Scribner Village has now said, okay, now we're going to enter, we're going to cure it, and do it on its own. On July 12th, Scribner Village did enter into a contract with a vendor, Sanctuary Gardens, who is a local tree installer. They have been in some initial discussions with the Village of Wellington staff, and I think the code enforcement officer acknowledged that. But as I'm understanding it this morning, that there hasn't been any recent communication. So what I'm asking for, and so what we're getting from Sanctuary Gardens is that they can install and be prepared to install within two to three weeks to start the project. I think we're talking about 12 trees and related work. So what we would ask the special magistrate for is for an extension of either 30 or 45 days in order to accomplish that work. But again, no factual dispute with what's been presented to the special magistrate.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Cortez, for that. There was a mention that the whole scope of work for this is 12 trees. Is that accurate or?

I believe so. If I could ask.

Damian would know.

Good morning.

Damian Newell with Planning and Zoning. Okay. We do have a list of trees that we've provided to them.

I guess my question is, is it like around 12 trees that they have to replace or plant? Correct.

Correct.

Okay. So it's around 12 trees. Just want to make sure I understand that. And then if you could refresh my recollection, officer, when did the first notice go out to Scribner that this work needed to be done? As far as? When did this NOH go out to them? When were they first aware that there was an issue, that they were in violation of the code?

The property was posted, I believe, sometime in May. As far as the exact date, I'm not sure.

No, I just kind of want to get a ballpark figure of this. So in May of 2026, Scribner was advised that, hey, these 12 trees, I guess that, because I've got here that the violation is that trees need to be removed and then replaced.

Sorry, correction. It was posted on April 22nd, 2026. So we're just going to go April.

Okay, so maybe I'm a little confused. So, because I'm looking at the violation and it says, so what is it for land development regulation section 7.8.7.C, what is that violation? Is it that they're, yeah, what's the violation?

So, that violation would be hat rack trees in the soil area in front of various properties. I have the list of those addresses.

Okay. So there's hat racked trees. And what's the remedy for that?

So they were advised by last hearing to, I believe, remove the trees.

Okay. For the hat racked trees, the requirement is for removal or replacement. Okay. And also this property has street tree requirements. So they have to make sure they're meeting those standards.

Okay. So once a tree's been hat-racked, because I'm thinking, yeah, there's not much you can do, so it has to be then you have to remove it and then replace it pursuant to whatever your regulations are for replacement, the type of tree and all that stuff. Okay. So is that what constitutes that violation, just that they were hat-racked trees and they have to be removed and replaced? Correct. Okay. So let me go to the other violation. Missing required street trees not so is explain to me what that violation is.

That violation is for in some locations that trees were removed previously and there currently hasn't been replaced. Okay. And in one instance there is palms which were installed which are not meeting the requirement for the canopy trees. So they would have to remove and replace those.

Okay. And then one other question is the trees that are hat racked, are they included in this, the other violation of the missing required trees or they're a completely separate thing?

They are completely separate.

Thank you. And I appreciate you clarifying all this for me. Okay. Mr. Cortez, if you could, because I think very simply, if you could explain to me what is the position, what's your client's position on this land development regulation section 7.8.2A.G, the missing required street trees?

Acknowledged, right.

Okay, so you acknowledge it, and so is that part of the agreement that you have with this firm that's going to come in and replace those trees?

That is correct. So they're Yeah, I'm even simpler. In my mind, there's one violation. A bunch of trees need to be installed, and if that means removing the bad one that's there, it just needs to be installed. So, yes, the contract is to address both violations.

Okay. And in order to replace the trees, well, let me ask you this. So for the hat rack trees, is a permit required to remove the trees?

Yes.

Okay. And is a separate permit required to plant the trees, to plant new trees, or is it all part of one?

I believe it could be done in the same permit. It's all in one permit.

One permit. Okay. And so for the first violation, a permit would also be required to plant the trees where they're missing or not?

That would be included. We include everything in the one permit.

Okay. Kind of just like, okay. So, and a permit has not been applied for?

A permit was applied for. However, it was withdrawn because we didn't receive any resubmittal. So it's administratively withdrawn after 90 days.

Okay. So there was a permit and it's good for 90, the application is active for 90 days. And when did that application expire?

I don't know the expiration date, but I know it was applied for August of 2025. Okay.

Okay, so 8-25. All right. And what is your client's position as far as applying for a new permit to remove and replace all these trees?

So my client acknowledges they have to do that, and that's part of the agreement with the contractors. The contractor, obviously my client legally applies for it, but the contractor does the legwork. I don't want to overspeak, but the contractor's been in contact with Mr. Newell. What I'm learning this morning is there's apparently confusion on my client's end in terms of the contractor. My client believes that the contractor needs to hire an architect in order to do this work. And speaking with Mr. Newell this morning, and based on my past experience, is if we're simply putting the trees back exactly where they need to be, permits required, but not the landscape architect. If we're wanting to move them, and not out of a desire necessarily, but if there's some necessity where we say, okay, well, the tree needs to be removed, um then a landscape architect would need to draw that to propose it to um to mr newell what i what i can't tell the special magistrate is why that last conversation i believe sometime in july as i sit here in august has not followed up and occurred so so my request for the additional time is to make that happen but also to get the uh to get the trees installed right and so my

What I'm hearing by my questions is that there was an application made back in August a year ago. That expired. And now we had the notice of violations that occurred in April. And here we are today in August. And it appears that your client has some type of arrangement with a landscaping company, yet the landscaping company has not gone through the next logical step, which is the application process. And I guess, you know, looking at all the time that your clients had and nothing's really moved, I'm trying to figure out how giving them an extra 30 days would make something move. Because nothing's moved in a year.

Understood. I don't know that it's entirely fair to say the contractor hasn't done something. I think Mr. Newell would acknowledge that they've contacted them. But obviously, there's less diligence than we would want in terms of taking Mr. Newell's information and going back and making the permit application accordingly.

Right. And if I could add.

Yeah, please. The contractor, a part of the process, the contractor does have to do locates for underground utilities.

Right.

So that is something that's added to it. The only information I don't have currently is if they have done that as yet. Because that would also, that was one of the questions I had with them is, you know, based on are you doing a removal and replacement in the same location? And have you done the locates? I haven't. received an update on that, so that would be something that's important. At least if they have done that, they are moving along in the process of doing the actual work.

Okay. And does the village have a position on granting, I guess, a continuance on this for 30 days?

Based on the information I have, yes, the 30 days is acceptable to the village.

Okay. All right. Mr. Cortez, I appreciate you being here. Based upon the foregoing, I guess I'm just going to continue the fine certification hearing. We will continue it to the next hearing date, which is going to be September 17th, but I'm not sure. It is September 17th. All right. We will go ahead and continue this fine certification hearing in this matter to September 17th, 2026, 9 a.m. here. And, again, thank you for being here. Thank everyone for being here. And hopefully your client can get all of the ducks in a row and get this project moving.

Thank you. I appreciate everyone's time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to move to item number 12 on the new business, NOHCC 1768-2026. Johnston Joseph is the court officer.

Good morning. Johnson Joseph, Code Compliance Officer for the Village of Wellington. The case number is CC-1768-2026. The respondent name is Natalie Bastian Monperru. Property address is 15430 Meadowood Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on an internal complaint. The NOVNH was served by posted notice on August 12, 2026 at the property, at the Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's Office. A copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. I request that the service of the NOVNH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was on July 13th, 2026. An inspection on July 14th, 2026 found the following items remain being the time given. In the notice and violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1, walls and gavel stained and or discolored. 13-2.B.2, driveway and sidewalk stained and or discolored. And 13-2.B.4, lawn and swell contains dead and bare areas. in Wellington and development regulation section 7.8 my 7 point D broken sprinkler system in between police your hedge. What is it taken to fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time I request that the photos be entered into evidence so entered a follow-up inspection on August 8th 11th 15th 16th and 19th 2026 fund of from that one 10 code section 13 dash 2.1 and 13-2.B.4, community compliance, and the only remaining violations are Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.4, lawn and soil contains dead and bare areas, and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.D, broken sprinkler systems in between Colusia Hedge. A PACER search final respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against this property. Contact with the owner and or representative. Multiple attempts were made to contact the owner via emails and by leaving door hangers at the property. On August 19, 2026, a representative of the property owner and cousin of the property owner, Mr. Verb, called in response to the posted notice at the property. Mr. Verb stated that he did not understand the nature of the code case. Staff had explained the violation and details and later emailed Mr. Verb for further information and the date of the hearing. As of today, the staff has not received any response and the violation still remains uncorrected. The Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be fined of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.4 and Wellington Land Development Regulations Section 7.A.7.D. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $14.19 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and order violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026, at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Josephs. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Natalie Bastien-Montperis, which is NOH-CC 1768-2026, is there anyone here on this matter?

I'm Natalie Bastien.

Okay, thank you. All right, did you sign in? There's a little underneath your purse. I will do that. All right. Thank you. Just a reminder, we are here only about the broken sprinkler and the lawn swale contains dead and bare areas. So, Ms. Bestine, what would you like to tell me about that?

Yes. A few clarifications. This part here is not caused by a broken sprinkler, and I have pictures from this morning to show. When it rains, there are two areas on my property where water And the middle part that he showed in, if you go to the next picture, most likely is a sprinkler that's spreading the wrong way. But it doesn't cause disaccumulation of water that you see over there. I have also in front of my first driveway an area where when it rains, all the water stays there. The other properties, you can see that after a day or two, the water clears, but mine stays there. and that's one of the reasons why the driveway no matter how often we do um we what um we pressure wash the driveway it will stand back so we try to find another way to to come out of it i have what people there and they told me this is something that i need to bring up to the city and i will do that so On this side here, this is not, I don't have a sprinkler that can reach there to spread water. We would have to actually turn on the sprinkler, take a video of the direction of the jets. And this morning when I went there, most of the, you can see some sprinkle of water over, you know, that crosses to that area, but it's not enough water to cause this stagnant water. And I have videos also and pictures that I could share with you if it's possible. And it also shows the water that stays. So these two are from the rain and it doesn't go away. And when you walk through Meadowood, you can see a lot of other areas like that. And I have some videos and pictures of them. And it's causing a mosquito problem in any case. i have hired different people to come and that's why webster called yesterday i guess they had a hard time understanding what the needed to be done and um i am definitely willing to work with the code enforcer to make sure that all violations are addressed I want to also verify what email address they have for me because I haven't received any electronic emails regarding the code violations. There were letters sent to the house and I have given them. to the people who help with the landscape. One of the is with my mom and I, we've been dealing with illnesses. So it's been very difficult. Like right now, I'm supposed to be at a doctor's appointment with her. And I'm here. But there is no neglect to address the codes. I have had a major debranching in May. And they did not do what they were supposed to do. So that's why I shared yesterday when Webster called, is because I shared the exact notes with him. I said, you need to find out exactly what you need to do, because I have spent a lot of money trying to get things done, and it's still not to the requirements of the, I mean, to fix the violations.

All right. Thank you. I just have a couple questions, and this is a great picture to stay on. So if I understand the basis for the violation of the broken sprinkler, is this what we're looking at?

Yes, exactly.

Okay. And so... Based on this picture, it appears that it would be a sprinkler that is near the hedge and that it's leaking water that is then going into, I'll call it the swale area. Correct. Okay. And when you took this photograph, can you tell me what you observed that we're seeing here?

Yeah, not only that date. I had multiple code officers go out there during the weekends around 6, 7 a.m.ish to observe what was going on. And from what they have told me is that every time the sprinklers turn on, you can see the water dripping slowly in the swell. It's not like we don't have evidence. We have evidence of it happening. But I'm okay to work with you if you can actually show me proof that the water that's coming through the hedge is not actually pouring into the swell. And The fact that is sometimes when I go out there, it's like weeks since it's been raining. So it's not the raining that's causing the issue.

Let me ask you another question. In that swale area, are there any sprinklers?

Not that I'm aware of. Okay.

And have you been to this area when the sprinklers have been on?

Yes.

Okay. And is it your testimony that when you were there and the sprinklers were on, you could see that the water was coming back towards the swale area?

Yes. I have photos. I don't have the specific time when the sprinkler turns on. Of course. I just have proof of the water mark of the water coming from that hedge and that area pouring into the soil.

Right. And you personally have observed when the sprinklers were there and that the water then is going into the swale area. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Now, moving to the violation of the lawn swale contains dead bare areas. I'm going to assume, based on this photograph, that the area to the left there, that is the bare area that's constituting this violation, correct? Yes. Okay. Ms. Vasdeen, what is it you, do you have anything else you want to add? Right now, I just want to focus on this dead bear area, other than what you told me.

So there are plans, and after they called him, there's a whole crew coming to the house this weekend to address all that and more things. And I told them to just go ahead and cap whatever sprinklers there, just cap them. And then let's see what happens, and that's what will be done.

And what are your plans for remedying the dead bear area that we see here in the photograph?

I just need to know exactly what needs to be done because they will be there this weekend, and I know exactly what needs to be done, and they have the officer's number. They will work there, and they will send him, and we have someone else's email. That's an email to WEBS yesterday. So they will send them, and if they say that this is not enough, what else to be done, they will take care of it. They have the full authority to do that.

Okay. And if I understand your testimony correctly, you're telling me that you already have an agreement that a firm is going to come out to your home tomorrow, or I'm sorry, this weekend? This weekend. Okay. All right. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

I will I mean I don't want to take more time than necessary because we're in agreement that anything that needs to be fixed will be fixed and then there will be better communication to ensure that the people doing the work understand the scope and meet the requirements and I have some paperwork to submit for what I think the city needs to help with in Meadowood, and that would be separate. I don't think we need to take time for that.

Okay. I just want to, you know, number one, encourage you to work closely with code enforcement. I, you know, you mentioned something about not having a correct email, so today would be an excellent opportunity for you to provide an email. I want to let you know that I am going to enter an order finding you in violation. However, you have until September 17th to correct the violation and there will be no fine assessed. So I do encourage you, since you do, you know, have a plan, that you work closely with code enforcement and that you, you know, get this done before the 17th so that you will have, I think, you know, no financial, no significant financial impact from this.

Understood.

All right. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served. Further, that the owner is present. I do make the following conclusions of law, that the respondent is in violation of land development regulation section 7.8.7.D, code section 13.2.B.4. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 26. A fine in the amount of $25 per day will be assessed against the respondent which will begin on September 18th. Costs in the amount of $14.19 are assessed against the respondent. A cease and desist order will be issued and that in the event you do not correct these violations, we will have a fine certification hearing back here on October 15th. I will follow that up with a written order of everything I have ruled here today, but I, again, encourage you to work with code enforcement so that you can get this matter taken care of. Thank you very much, and my best to your mother.

Thank you.

There is no more.

I have a few staff I have to get out, so I'll go ahead and call those cases. Item number two on the new business, NOHCC60482025. Ward Putnam is the code officer.

Good morning. Good morning. Ward Putnell, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is CC-6048-2025. Respondent's name, South Shore Partners, LLC. Property address is 12160 South Shore Boulevard, Unit 105, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on an internal complaint. The innovative H was served by certified mail, return receipt received. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was July 13th, 2026. An inspection on July 14th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice and violation of Wellington Code Sections Chapter 21, Article 2, No Business Tax Receipt for Piece of Pizza. Photos and screenshots were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs and screenshots be entered into evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspection on August 5th and 13th, 2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there is not a Liz Penance filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative on May 19, 2026. While dropping off a door hanger, I spoke to one of the staff behind the counter. I asked for them to have the owner contact me regarding the business tax receipt. No response has been given. Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section Chapter 21, Article 2. It is recommended that the respondent be found in violation in order to be paid the local business tax fee, plus a penalty of 25% of the license determined to be due and a penalty of $250. It is also recommended that the cost incurred in the amount of $13.54 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. Cease and desist order for a period of five years as requested.

All right. Thank you very much. In the matter of Wellington versus South Shore Partners, LLC, NOH-CC6048-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing no one present and the time being 9.36, based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondent and that the respondent is not here. Based upon the foregoing, I find that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 21, Article 2, failure to have a business tax receipt. Respondent is hereby ordered to obtain and pay for a business tax receipt. A penalty in the amount of $250 plus 25% of the business license fee is also assessed against the respondent. Costs in the amount of $13.54 is assessed. And a cease and desist order will also be issued. And I will follow that up with a written order. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number three on the new business, NOHCC 6065-2025. Christopher Persaud is the code officer.

Good morning. Christopher Prasad, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number CC6065-2025. Respondent is named Betsy Caesar, Jean Robert Caesar. Property address 860 Brightwood Way, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV-NOH was served by certified mail. Return received. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered in as evidence. So entered. The correction date was July 27, 2026. An inspection on 7-28-2026 found the following item beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Walton code section chapter 21 article to no business tax receipt for rental property at 8, 6, 0, right would wait for once in Florida. A follow-up inspection on 7-20-26 from the following from the violation still does exist. Staff conducted a PACES search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there's not a list pendants filed against his property. Staff made multiple attempts to contact the property owner regarding the business tax receipt, including telephone calls and email correspondence. Staff also contacted the tenant at the property. The tenant advised staff that he would reach out to the landlord and request the landlord to contact us. As of today, staff has not received any communication from the property owner. The Code Compliance Division recommend the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section Chapter 21, Article 2. It is recommended that the respondent be found in violation in order to pay the local business tax fee plus a penalty of 25% of the license determined to be due and a penalty of $250. It is also recommended the cost incurred in the amount of $12.76 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of date of this meeting. A cease and desist for a period of five years is requested.

All right. Thank you. Okay. In the matter of Wellington v. Bethesda Cesar and Jean Robert, CSER case number NOH-CC6065-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 940, I do have a question, Mr. Pasad. How is it that

you determined that this was um this the property at 860 brightwood was being used as a rental so this started with the previous uh property maintenance case that i had before and when i left a door hanger the person came out and he inquired what i was doing and i told him you know sidewalk needed to be clean and he said There were some other things that needed to be done. And he said he would let the property owner know that he's just a tenant. So from there, that's when this case was opened.

Okay. I guess I'm struggling with just somebody saying that they're a tenant is not necessarily what I see as a really strong basis. I do see somebody coming up that may be able to provide some additional evidence on that.

Samantha Candela, business tax official with The Village. Thank you. Utilities Department has a tenant on record if you want to.

Okay. And is that for this current period? Yes. Okay. And is it on that application for utilities that the person has indicated that they are a tenant at 860 Brightwood Way?

Yes.

All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. All right. Based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent. I find that the respondent is not present here. I further find that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 21, Article 2, failure to have a business tax receipt. Therefore, I find that, or therefore I order that the respondent must obtain and pay for its business tax fee. It also, I'm going to assess a penalty in the amount of $250 plus 25% of the business license fee. Further costs in the amount of $12.76 are assessed. And a cease and desist order will be issued, and I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number four on the new business, NOHCC86-2026. Stefano Vigas is the court officer.

Stefano Vigas, Village Well and Tococo Plains.

This case number is NOH-CC-8086-2026. Respondent names James L. Paraguez and Victor H. Paraguez. Power of the address is 2059 Guadalupe Drive, Wellington, Florida. The case was established based on an internal complaint. The NOVNOH was served by a certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was July 13, 2026. An inspection on July 14, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the Notice and Violation of Voluntary Code, Sections Chapter 21, Article 2, No Business Tax Receipt for Voluntary and Luxury Estates, PLLC. A screenshot of the Sunbiz page were taken that fairly accurately represented the violation at that time. I request the screenshot be entered into evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on July 21st, 2026, July 30th, August 6th, August 10th, and 17th, 2026 found the violations do continue to exist. Staff conducted a patient search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list of pendants filed against his property. Staff have been communicating with the homeowner through emails explaining the violation and how to come into compliance and phone calls. Staff was informed that the address on some business has been changed. However, the address remains unchanged as 2059 Guadalupe Drive. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Voluntary Code Section Chapter 21, Article 2. It is recommended that the respondent be found in violation in order to pay the local business tax fee plus a penalty of 25% of the license determined to be due. and a penalty of $250. It is also recommended that the cost incurred in the amount of $12.76 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested.

All right. Thank you very much. In the matter of Wellington v. James L. Paraguay, Victor H. Paraguay, NOH-CC86-2026, is anyone here on this matter? All right. Noting no one is here and the time is 944. I have a question. The Sun Biz that was entered into evidence here, when was that taken?

This screenshot was taken, I believe.

Because I can't see kind of the whole thing, that's all. Because usually, well, no, if you zoom back, usually on, I think, the top left, it'll tell you, you know, when it was printed.

I believe it was on the 17th. I have a copy of one from this morning.

That's fine. Like I said, I like to see the date when it was printed. That's fine. Okay. And then the other question I have is on the officers. Just curious, are either of the property owners listed as officer of these or partners listed in this Wellington Luxury Estates PLC?

As officers?

Yeah, you see because it says authorized person details. I can't see the bottom of it. That's all.

Gotcha. Would you like the screenshot?

Yeah, if you want to just show it to me, that's fine. Like I said, it's – I just always like to see if it's – all right. Okay, so it is somebody – okay. All right. Okay, so it is one of them, too, is also listed. Okay. That's all I needed. All right. Thank you very much for the clarifications. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation for today was properly served. I find that the respondent is not here. Further, I conclude that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 21, Article 2, failure to have a business tax receipt. As a result, I hereby order them to obtain and pay for a business tax receipt. Further, a penalty in the amount of $250 plus 25% of the business license fee is also assessed against the respondent and costs in the amount of $12.76. I will follow this up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number two, undefined certification, NOHCC 3669-2025. Harold Archer is the court officer.

Good morning. Helen Archer, code officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is CC3692025. Respondent's name is KPI Equity Holdings, LLC, Latitude Property Investments, LLC. Property address is at 15756 Ocean Breeze Lane, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was June 18th, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violations of LDR 1.7.2, expired engineering permit ENG 23-0039 for scrapping, lot development, installation of driveways, both temporary and permanent, on or before February 19th, 2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on March 19, 2026 if the Code Compliance Division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. Research on February 23, 2026 found the property was still in violation of LDR 1.7.2. Contact was made with the representative and they requested a continuance of the case until August. Since then, I have made several attempts to email, left phone messages with the representative, but no contact has been made. A PACER search found the representative, the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against this property. The Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the order of LDR 1.7.2 and that the respondent be assessed to find in the pursuant to Section 2-3882 of the Code of Ordinances in Section 162-18. of the Florida statutes. In determining the amount of the fine, the special magistrate must consider the following factors. One, the gravity of the violation. Two, the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. And three, any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property. As to the gravity of the violation, an expired engineering permit. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, permit ENG 23-0039 has not been renewed. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, there is no prior record. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be assessed to find the amount of $50 per day commencing on February 20, 2026, and in addition cost in the amount of $35.26, which does include costs assessed in the order, both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you. And in the matter of Wellington v. KPI Equity Holdings, LLC, Latitude Property Investments, LLC, which is case number NOH-CC3669-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? Seeing none and noting the time of 9.49, I just had a few questions just to make sure I understand this. So this was, okay, so respondents are here by order to correct. There was an order entered by the special magistrate on January 15th of 2026. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Because I'm like, I'm seeing here the respondent. Okay. All right. So, okay. So, I got it. All right. And... Your review of the records is that the expired engineering permit is still expired, correct? That's correct. All right. Thank you very much. Based upon the evidence, photos, and testimony in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent. and that the respondent is not here. I see and see in the record that on January 15, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation of Land Development Regulation Section 1.7.2. I further find that this violation has not been corrected as of today's date. After hearing the testimony, evidence, and photos with the requirements of Florida statute and Wellington Code, given the gravity of the violation, which could be a safety violation in the respect that this is an expired engineering permit, that the respondent has made no efforts to correct the violation, and that the respondent does not have a history of a violation at the property, I determine that a fine in the amount of $50 is appropriate and is assessed against the respondent, and it will begin or it began assessing on February 20th, 2026. I further order costs in the amount of $35.26 are assessed against the respondent, and I will follow this up with a written order.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. That's what you were trying to tell me. Gotcha. All right. So we'll do July 16th. Okay. All right. So I will reopen, recall the case just to correct that based upon an order for extension, that was entered by the magistrate on March 19th, which I didn't see earlier, didn't pay attention to, that the fine will not begin in February. Instead, it will begin on July 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 will be assessed against the respondent, which began on July 17th, 2026. And I'll follow that up with a written order. Thank you.

We'll move to item number nine on the new business, NOHCC 1503-2026. Nicholas Christopher is the court officer.

Good morning. Code Officer Nicholas Christoffel with the Village of Wellington presenting case number NOHCC-1503-2026. Respondent names Holly Karoben, Trustee, Matthew Yatarian, Trustee, and Matthew Yatarian, 2008, Living Trust. Property address 14290 Calypso Lane, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV-NOH was served by post-it notice on July 23rd, 2026 at the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's office. A copy of the post-it notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was August 3rd, 2026. An inspection on August 4th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5. Expired building permit BP23-4696, replace existing windows and doors. Screenshot was taken that fairly and accurately represents the violation at that time. I request the screenshot be entered into evidence. So entered. A follow-up inspection on August 12th and August 18th, 2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or less pendants filed against this property. On May 4th, 2026, an email was sent to the property owner regarding the expired permit. On May 14th, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. On May 22nd, 2026, I spoke with the property manager, Lawrence. He stated that the windows and doors were inspected under permit BP23-2929. After review from the building department, Lawrence was asked to submit a copy of the permit card for verification of the inspection. No further response was received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $50 per day for each state the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $14.19 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15th, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Holly Carbone, Trustee Matthew Yettirian, Trustee and Matthew Yettirian, 2008 Living Trust, case number NOH-CC-1503-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 9.56, I just want to make sure I understand your testimony correctly. It was once the property owner said, oh, yeah, it's already been inspected, and you said, hey, can you send me the documents that support that? You didn't hear anything after that.

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent. Further, that the respondent is not present. I find that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 1-5-1-105.5. The permit has expired and has not been renewed or closed out. A respondent is hereby ordered to correct this violation by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day is also assessed against the respondent, and costs in the amount of $14.19 are assessed. A cease and desist order will also be issued, and that in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th. And I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 10 on the new business, NOH CC 1513-2026. Nicholas Christopher is the code officer.

Good morning. Code officer Nicholas Christopher with the Village of Wellington presenting case number NOH-CC-1513-2026. Respondent names Chad Knoll and Lauren A. Knoll. Property address 1934 South Club Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOVNOH was served by certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was July 13th, 2026. An inspection on July 14th 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given a notice of violation of Wellington code section 5 dash one 105.5 expired building permit BP 20 dash 3594 remodel kitchen and bathrooms photos are screenshot was taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation of the time I request the screenshot be entered into evidence so enter. The follow-up inspection on July 28th, August 11th, and August 18th, 2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against this property. On May 4th, 2026, I sent an email to the owners regarding the expired permit. On May 14th, 2026, I left a door hanger at the property. On July 6th, 2026, I spoke with Mr. Noll regarding the code case and emailed the stipulation agreement. On August 13th, 2026, I sent an email reminder to Mr. Noll regarding the submission of the stipulation agreement. No further response was received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $50 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $12.76 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that the fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. In the matter of Wellington v. Chad Noel and Lorne A. Noel, NOH-CC 1513-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 10 a.m., based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondents and that the respondents are not here. I make the following conclusions of law that the respondents are in violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.5, permit expiration. The respondent is hereby ordered to correct this violation by September 17th, 2026 in the amount, I'm sorry, a fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent and costs in the amount of $12.76 are assessed as well. A cease and desist order will be entered and in the event that the respondent does not Correct this violation a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th 2026 and I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you Thank you.

We're gonna move to item number 13 on the new business and o8 CC 1855 2026 Nicholas Christopher is a court officer

Good morning. Code Officer Nicholas Christopher with the Village of Wellington presenting case number NOHCC-1855-2026. Respondent names Linda S. Lovesue and Stefan W. Lovesue. Property address 2532 Stonegate Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV-NOH was served by posted notice on July 23rd at the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's office. A copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was August 3rd, 2026. An inspection on August 4th, 2026 found the following item remained beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5, expired building permits BP21-0953, pool, spa, and deck installation. and building permit BP22-0932 pool barriers slash privacy vinyl fence with two 5-foot gates and one 4-foot gate. Screenshots were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the screenshots be entered as evidence.

Thank you. Yes.

A follow-up inspection on August 13th and August 18th found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a pacer search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or those pendants filed against this property. On May 29th, 2026, an email was sent to the property owner regarding the expired permits. On June 8th, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. No response received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $50 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $14.19 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Linda Loiseau and Stephanie W. Loiseau, NOH-CC 18552026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, noting the time of 10.04 and based upon the testimony, evidence and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondents and that the respondents are not here. I make the following conclusions of law that the respondents are in violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.5 permit expiration. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day is also assessed against the respondents and costs in the amount of $14.19 is also assessed. A cease and desist order will be issued. and that in the event the respondents fail to correct this violation, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th, 2026. A written order will be sent to the respondents with my ruling. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number five under fine certification, NOHCC 5733-2025. Nicholas Christopher is the court officer.

Good morning, code officer Nicholas Christopher with the village of Wellington. Presenting case number NOH-CC-5733-2025. Respondent names Michael Gambarati and Shannon Gambarati. Property address 1384 Primrose Lane, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was June 18th, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1-105.5. Expired building permits BP 23-0622 and 18-2296 wood fence double gates and replace 16 windows and four doors with impact on or before July 16th, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order was also scheduled a fine certification hearing on August 20th, 2026 if the Code Compliance Division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on July 17th, 2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington Land, or sorry, Wellington Code Section 5-1 105.5, building permit VP23-0622 wood fence double gate was renewed. However, permit 18-2296 replaced 16 windows and four doors with impact remained expired. A follow-up inspection on July 31st, August 12th, and August 18th, 2026 found the violation still exists. Screenshots were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspection. I request the screenshot be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Pacer search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or Liz Pendens filed against this property. On November 21st, 2025, staff left a voicemail to Mr. Gamberati. On December 4th, 2025, staff spoke to Mr. Gamberati by phone and referred them to the building department for further assistance. On February 6th, 2026, staff had sent an email to the property owner. On March 20th, 2026, I left a door hanger at the property. On April 6th, 2026, I spoke with Mr. Gamberati by phone. I offered to email him a stipulation agreement in the event the additional time would be needed to correct the violation beyond the previous May 18th correction date. On May 20th, 2026, I emailed the stipulation agreement to Mr. Gamberati. On June 11th, 2026, I called Mr. Gamberati and left a voicemail. No further response received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of the Order Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5 and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to Section 2-38 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 162.09 of the Florida Statutes. In determining the amount of the fine, the special magistrate must consider the following factors, the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property. As to the gravity of the violation, permit 18-22- or 18-2296 remains expired. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, permit 18-2296 has not been renewed. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, there is no prior record. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $50 per day commencing on July 17, 2026, and in addition to costs in the amount of $46.70, which does include a cost assessed in the order both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Michael Gambriotti, Shannon Gambriotti, case number NOH-CC57332025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 10.09, based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification in hearing for today was properly served on the respondent. Further, that on June 18, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations of Code Section 5-1, 105.5, Permits Expiration. I do find that the building permit in 2023 has been resolved. However, there is the outstanding permit of 18-2296, which is still outstanding. After hearing the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, and reviewing the requirements of Florida law and Wellington code, reviewing the gravity of the violations that the one permit is still, it still has not been resolved and closed out and has, further I find that the respondent has made no effort to correct these violations and that there is no history of this violation at this same property. I do determine that a fine in the amount of $50 per day is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on July 17, 2026. Cost in the amount of $46.70 is also assessed, and this will be followed up with a written order to the property owner. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number one on the new business, NOHCC 3837-2025. Isaiah Como is the court officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC3837-2025. Respondent name is Herbert J. Grimshaw II. Property address is 1846 Lindsay Court, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint The NOV-NOH was served by posted notice on July 23rd, 2026 at the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's Office. A copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was August 2nd, 2026. An inspection on August 5th found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Wellington Code Section 9-3.F, nuisance declared, stagnant swimming pool. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspections on August 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th and 19th found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a pacer search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner slash representative. Staff has maintained ongoing communication with the owner slash representative Anthony regarding the stagnant swimming pool beginning on July 30th, 2025. and continuing throughout the duration of this case. During multiple conversations, Anthony was advised that the swimming pool pump would need to be repaired or replaced to eliminate the stagnant water condition. Anthony repeatedly stated that he had scheduled a repair technician to repair the pool pump. Based on representations that the issue had been corrected, staff at one point determined the case could be closed. However, a neighboring property owner subsequently contacted the village and reported that the pool remained stagnant, the water had turned black, and that the pool pump was not operating. Staff confirmed the violation remained. On May 14, 2026, staff advised Anthony that the swimming pool cover would need to be properly bolted and secured to prevent it from becoming displaced and exposing the stagnant water. Anthony acknowledged this requirement. On June 10, 2026, staff again reminded Anthony that the pool cover would need to be properly bolted and secured. During that inspection, Anthony showed the swimming pool pump and advised that it continuously becomes clogged with leaves, preventing it from operating properly. Staff documented the condition with photographs. Despite ongoing communication, repeated opportunities to achieve compliance, and the owner-slash-representative's acknowledgement of the condition, the stagnant swimming pool violation has remained unresolved. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 9-3.F. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 3rd to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $50 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $14.19 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, It is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the special magistrate on September 17th, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. In the matter of Wellington v. Herbert J. Grimshaw II, NOH-CC 3837-2025, is anyone here on this matter? Seeing none and noting the time of 1015. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent who is not present here today. I further find that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 9-3F. unsecured stagnant pool. Respondent is ordered to correct this violation by September 3rd, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation is assessed against the property, which will begin on September 4th. Costs in the amount of $14.19 are further assessed and a cease and desist order will be issued. In the event that the respondent does not correct this violation, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on September 17, 2026. And I'll follow that up with a written order to Mr. Grimshaw. Thank you.

We're going to call the second case under item number 1, NOHCC 651-2026. Isaiah Comer is the court officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC-651-2026. Respondent name is Herbert J. Grimshaw II. Property address is 1846 Lindsay Court, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOVNOH was served by certified mail. Return receipt received. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was July 13th, 2026. An inspection on July 14th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.2, driveway stained and or discolored, sidewalk stained and or discolored, and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.2.A through G, missing shrubs and or vegetation and landscape along foundation of the property. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspections on July 22nd, July 29th, August 3rd, August 10th, August 16th, and August 18th of 2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against his property. Staff contact with the owner slash representative. I have spoken to and communicated with Anthony on multiple occasions and advised him of the violations found on the property. Anthony's primary concern was regarding the stagnant pool water located at the rear of the home. I have also advised Anthony on numerous occasions that the front of the property requires vegetation and that the driveway and sidewalk requires cleaning. Anthony has not taken corrective action regarding the required vegetation and the driveway and sidewalk were scrapped rather than cleaned. Since our last communication, I have not received any further contact or updates from Anthony regarding the remaining violations. code compliance division recommends the respondent be found in violation of wellington code sections 13-2.b.2 and wellington land development regulations section 7.8.2.8 through g it is recommended that the respondent be given until september 17 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed 25 per day per violation for each data violation continues to exist It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $12.76 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, It is recommended that the fine certification hearing be held before the special magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. And in the case of Wellington versus Herbert J. Grimshaw, NOH-CC651-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Noting the time of 10-19, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondent and that the respondent is not here. I further find that based upon the evidence that the respondent is in violation of land development regulation section 7.8.2 A through G and Code Section 13-2.B.2. Respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed and will begin on September 18th. Costs in the amount of $12.76 is assessed. A cease and desist order will be entered and that in the event that the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th, 2026. And this also will be forwarded to Mr. Grimshaw. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number five on the new business, NOHCC 293-2026. Stefano Vegas is the court officer.

Officer Stefano Villegas, Village of Wellington Co-Compliance. Case number NOH-CC-293-2026. Excuse me. Respondent name, Uche Isiogo. Property address 10679 Old Hammock Way, Wellington, Florida. The case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOH was served by certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was July 13th, 2026. An inspection on July 14th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.1. Walls are stained and are discolored. Trim is stained and are discolored. Wellington LDR Code Section 6.4.1.8.6. AC unit not screened from view. The roof was found to be cleaned. Photographs were taken that fairly accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on July 21st, 30th, August 6th, and August 17th, 2026 found the violation still exists. A pacer search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against his property. staff contact with the owner representative staff reached out through phone calls and door hangers the violation has been explained the violations have been explained excuse me and the owner has acknowledged but the compliance has not been met the code compliance division recommends that the respondent be fined a violation of law into code section thirteen dash to dot b dot one and all the are sections six point four point eight point six is recommended that those finally given until september seventeenth twenty six to correct the violations will be charged a finite six each one twenty five dollars per day free per violation for each of the violation continues to exist is also recommended the cost incurred by the co-compliance division in the amount of twelve dollars and six cents be assessed in order to be paid within thirty days of the date of this meeting a cease and desist Order for a period of five years is required. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Uche... Isugo case number NOH-CC293-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 10-23. I just want to ask one question. If I understand the violations as they relate to 13-2.B.1 is that the walls are stained and the trim is stained, correct?

Yes. Walls are stained and the trim is stained.

Okay, great. All right. Thank you very much for that clarification. Okay. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation and hearing for today was properly served. I further find that the respondent is not here. Based upon the foregoing, I find that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 13-2.B.1 and Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.6. I order the respondent to correct these violations by September 17, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is also assessed against the property or the homeowner. Costs in the amount of $12.76 are also assessed. A cease and desist order will be issued prohibiting future violations. and that in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th. And I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll move to item number seven on the new business, NOHCC 929-2026. Julia Coulter is the court officer.

Good morning. Case number NOHCC9292026. Respondent name Jacqueline Kennedy, Richard Kennedy. Property address 1197 Belmore Terrace, Wellington, Florida. The case was established based on the Neighborhood Improvement Inspection. The NOVNOH was served by posted notice on July 23, 2026. At the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's Office, a copy of the post and notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered in as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was August 1st, 2026, and inspection...

Sorry.

An inspection on August 3rd, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given and notice a violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.b.1, roof, walls, and drip edge stained and discolored. 13-2.b.2 driveway and sidewalk stained and or discolored weeds and driveway and sidewalk 13-3.b.1 garbage and or recycling container not screened from view wellington land development regulations section 7.8.7.b landscape is not being maintained in a neat healthy and orderly manner plantings overgrown and need to be trimmed 7.8.2.A through G, missing vegetation slash shrubbery in front of house. 6.4.1.A.5.H, missing hedges in front of fences. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at the time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on August 5th, 10th, 12th, and 17th found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there is a list pendants filed against this property. Staff contact with owner representative. A door hanger was left at the property on August 6th, but no contact was made. On August 18th, I received an email from Mr. Kennedy stating he just saw the posting as he does not live at the property anymore. They are trying to sell the property and wants to pressure wash. I emailed him back letting him know that there are other violations also and offered a stipulation agreement and he can come back He can come in and sign the agreement. On the 19th, he called the code hotline and spoke to a fellow code officer. The code officer discussed the other violations, but Mr. Kennedy was not aware. He asked about the solid waste and was briefly explained the violation. Mr. Kennedy asked for me to call him. I called Mr. Kennedy back and spoke with him about the code case. I informed him that previous emails were sent and was notified about the violations. I explained that he can come in to speak to the magistrate, but he would not be able to attend. I informed him about the process following the hearing today and offered to meet with him at property. He stated he would contact me. The Co-Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.B.1, 13-2.B.2, and 13-3.B.1. Wellington Land Development Regulation Sections 7.8.7.B, 7.8.2.A-G, and 6.4.1.A.5.H. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violations or be charged if I not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the co-compliance division and the amount of $14.19 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the co-compliance division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the special magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington versus Richard Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy, NOH-CC929-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1029, I just had one question. The violation of Code Section 13-3.B.2, which is the garbage can, is that still part of the violations or has that been taken care of?

It's still part of the violations. It's still visible from the street.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because I was checking off, as you were saying, each violation, and I missed that one, so it's user error, but I just wanted to make sure. That's okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondents and that the respondents are not here. Further, I find that the respondents are in violation of land development regulation section 7.2, I'm sorry, 7.8.2, point A through G. Code Section 13-3.B.1 Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.H Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B Code Section 13-3.B.2 Code Section 13-2.B.1 and Code Section 13-2.B.2 um the respondents are further ordered to correct these violations by september 17th 2026 a fine in the amount of 25 dollars per day per violation will begin thereafter and fine in i'm sorry costs in the amount of 14.19 are further assessed a cease and desist order will be entered and that in the event the respondents fail to correct these violations a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th, 2026, and I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondents.

Okay, I do have a question. So it's 13-2.b.1, 13-2.b.2, 13-3.b.1, and then land development 7.8.7.b, 7.8.2.a through g, and 6.4.1.a.5.h, correct? Correct.

Yeah, whatever is in the order that, and sometimes I think I get them right, but what we're going to do is we're going to take the notice of violation hearing, and those are the violations, because none of them have been corrected, right? Correct.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure, because I thought I heard a different code section. That one's corrected.

Yes. Okay.

I think that's where I got confused about it. No worries. No worries. Okay.

So that was all right. So the garbage can has been corrected. From being at the curb, yes.

Garbage can left at curb outside allowed time. Yes. That's been corrected.

All right. So the order will reflect that that violation will not be part of the order that I will enter. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate everything.

The move to item number 8 on the new business and 08 CC 1363 2026 were put notice the court officer.

Good morning. The word put no compliance officer for the village of Wellington. Case number is CC-1363-2026. Respondent's name, Raman Marya. Property address is 12630 White Coral Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NoVNOH was served by posted notice on July 23, 2026 at the property at Village Hall and at the village clerk's office. Copy of the posted notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV and OH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was August 2nd, 2026. An inspection on August 3rd, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice and violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.B.1, roof stained and or discolored, wall stained and or discolored. Photos were taken that fairly inaccurately represent the violation at that time. A request to photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on August 12, 2026 found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there is not a Liz pendant filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative. On April 28, 2026, while dropping off a door hanger, I spoke to the tenant. I explained the violations to him, and he complained that the lights were not on. I explained that the holiday lights could not remain after January. He said he would remove the light, but needed more time to correct the violations. We granted him a courtesy extension until May 28, 2026. Code Compliance Division recommends the respondents be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.1. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $14.19 be assessed and ordered to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting a cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested in the event the code compliance division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the special magistrate on october 15th 2026 at 9 00 a.m at the wellington municipal complex 12300 forest hill boulevard wellington florida It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Village of Wellington v. Ramon Mayara, case number NOH-CC 1363-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Noting the time of 1036. Based upon the testimony evidence and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondent who is not here. I further find that the respondent is in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent, which will begin thereafter. Costs in the amount of $14.19 are assessed against the respondent. A cease and desist order will be entered and that in the event the respondent does not correct this violation, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th, 2026. And I will send the respondent a written order with my ruling. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going to move to item number 11 on the new business, NO8CC 1727-2026. Isaiah Como is the court officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC1727-2026. Respondent name is Martin Borges. Property address is 2638 Bedford News Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOVNOH was served by certified mail return receipt receive. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered in as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was July 14, 2026. An inspection on July 15, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the Notice of Violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.2.8-G, missing vegetation at the front plane of the home, 6.4.1.8.6, mechanical equipment not completely screened from view, and 6.4.1.8.5.BB, fences in a state of deterioration with broken boards. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspections on July 23rd, July 27th, August 4th, August 11th, and August 18th of 2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against his property. Staff contact with the owner slash representative. Staff attempted to establish contact with Morton Borges on multiple occasions by leaving door hangers and attempting to contact him by cellular device. Staff made contact on one occasion through his ring doorbell camera while leaving a door hanger at the property. During that conversation, staff advised Mr. Borges of the outstanding violations and provided instructions on how to contact staff should he need additional information or clarification regarding the violations. As of today, I have not received any further communication from Morton regarding the violations or this case. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.2.8 through G, 6.4.1.8.6, and 6.4.1.8.5.BB. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each date of violations continue to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $12.76 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to unpostify be given.

Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Martin Borgi's NOH-CC 1727-2026, is anyone here on this matter? Seeing none and noting the time of 1040, I just had one question, and that is if you could show me the photographs as they relate to the fence in a state of deterioration, broken boards.

This is a good photo. If you zoom in on the fence, you can see more towards the bottom of the gate portion. There is one section right there that is broken. They put it back, but it's not corrected. It's

Okay. And so are these zero lot line houses so that the house to the left, their property actually begins at the house? Yes. I guess I'm trying to figure out. Is the homeowner, the respondent, they're responsible for this entire gate? It's on their property?

What's on the left side of the house is what they're responsible for.

Okay. All right. And that the homeowner that's on the left, they're not responsible for the gate that's to their right?

No. They have their own section of fencing that is to the left of their house as well.

Gotcha. Okay, gotcha. All right. Appreciate the clarification. All right. Based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondent who is not here. Based upon the evidence, photo, and testimony, I further find that the respondent is in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.2.A-G. Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.BB and Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.6. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent. and costs in the amount of $12.76 are also assessed. A cease and desist order for five years will be entered, and that in the event the respondent fails to correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15, 2026, and I'll follow that up with a written order. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 14, NOHCC 1957-2026. Staff entered into a stipulation agreement with a compliance date of November 19, 2026. If not corrected, a fine certification hearing on December 10, 2026. And fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. Which case was that?

14. Okay.

14. Okay. Okay.

All right. I'm going to move to item number 15, NOHCC, 22-22-2026. Ward Putnam is the code officer.

Good morning. Ward Putnam, Code Compliance Officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is CC-2222-2026. Respondent's name, Ruth Trahan. Property address is 639 Lake Wellington Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOVNOH was served by certified mail. Return receipt received. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was August 3, 2026. An inspection on August 4, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice and violation of Wellington Code section 13-2.b.2, driveway stained and or discolored, and land development regulation section 7.8.7.b, hedges and rear of property encroaching into over public right of way, missing dying hedges and rear of property, dead fronds and palm tree, Code section 13-2.b.1 has been corrected. Photos were taken that fairly inaccurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence. So entered. Follow-up inspections on August 5th and 13th, 2026 found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pendant bankruptcy action. Research found there is not a Liz Pendence filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative. On June 18th, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. On August 5th, 2026, I sent an email to the property owner explaining the remaining violations and the hearing date of August 20th, 2026. No response was given. Code Compliance Division recommends a respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.b.2 and Land Development Regulations Section 7.8.7.b. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17th, 2026 to correct the violations or be charged the fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.54 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the day of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Ruth Trahan, case number NOH-CC2222-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1046, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the respondent was properly served the notice of violation in hearing for today. and they are not present. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos, I find that the respondent is in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B and Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.2. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation will begin thereafter. Costs in the amount of $13.54 are further assessed. A cease and desist order will be entered and that in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15th. And I will follow this up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you.

I'm going to move to item number 16, NOHCC 2292-2026. Staff entered into a stipulation agreement with a compliance date of September 17, 2026. If not corrected, a fine certification hearing on October 15, 2026. Fine not to exceed $25 per day. We're going to move to item number 17, NOHCC 2609-2026. Ward Putnam is the court officer. Good morning.

Ward Puttnall, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is CC-2609-2026. Respondent's name, SRP Sub LLC. Property address is 1613 Farmington Avenue, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV and OH was served by certified mail, return receipt received. Excuse me. I request the service of the NOV and OH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was July 27th, 2026. An inspection on July 30th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice and violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.B.2, driveway and sidewalks stained and or discolored. weeds growing in driveway and sidewalk. 13-3.c.2, household items on side and in front of house, visible from the street, and land development regulations section 7.8.7.b, landscape not being maintained in a neat, healthy, and orderly appearance, grass overgrown and needs to be mown, dead fronds and palm trees, hedges overgrown and need to be trimmed, debris, dead fronds, and lawn area, Code section 22-9.b.2 was in compliance. Photos were taken that fairly inaccurately represent the violations at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspections on August 6th and 13th, 2026 found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a PACER search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there is not a list pendants filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative. On June 10, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. No response was given. Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.b.2, 13-3.c.2, and Land Development Regulations Section 7.8.7.b. It is recommended that the respondent be given until September 17, 2026, to correct the violations or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.54 be assessed in order to be paid within 30 days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington versus SRP sub LLC, NOH-CC2609-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1051, based upon the evidence, testimony and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today were properly served on the respondent, that the respondent is not present. Further, I find that the respondent is in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. Code Section 13-2.B.2 and Code Section 13-3.C.2. I further find an order that the respondent correct these violations by September 17, 2026. Thereafter, a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent. I'm also assessing costs in the amount of $13.54. entering a cease and desist order and that in the event the respondent does not timely correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held on October 15th, 2026, and this will be followed up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 18 on the new business, NOHCC 2957-2026. Isaiah Como is the court officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, Koch Appliance Officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC-2957-2026. Respondent names are Bruce D. Hullen, Marjorie M. Hullen. Property address is 13183 Halifax Court, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV-NOH was served by post of notice on July 23, 2026. At the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's Office, a copy of the post of notice was mailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

correction date was August 2nd, 2026 and inspection on August 3rd, 2026. Found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.B.1. Roof in a state of deterioration, roof is stained and or discolored, walls in a state of deterioration, walls stained and or discolored. garage door in a state of deterioration, chimney wall in a state of deterioration, garage side door stained and or discolored. 13-2.B.2, driveway stained and or discolored corrected, sidewalk stained and or discolored corrected. In Wellington Land Development Regulations Section 7.A.7.B, dead fronds in the palms need to be removed, corrected. Hedges are dead, diseased, and are dying in areas still in violation. and land development regulations section 7.8.1.H, missing mulch within the landscaped areas. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered.

Follow-up inspections on August 10th, 11th, 13th, and 18th found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against his property. Staff contact with the owner slash representative. I have remained in communication with Diane, a representative of the HOA and Joshua Asset Preservation Coordinator. regarding the outstanding violations at the property. Joshua recently advised that he has obtained access to the property and that work orders have been opened to address and correct the outstanding violations. Communication with Diane has also remained ongoing regarding the property and efforts towards compliance. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. WELLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS 7.8.7.B AND 7.8.1.H. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESPONDER BE GIVEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS OR BE CHARGED A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $25 PER DAY PER VIOLATION FOR EACH DATE OF VIOLATIONS CONTINUE TO EXIST. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT COSTS INCURRED BY THE CO-COMPLIANCE DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $14.19 BE ASSESSED IN ORDER TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS MEETING. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. In the event the Code Compliance Division is not contacted as required and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on October 15, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington versus Bruce D. Houlin or Marjorie M. Houlin, case number NOH-CC 2957-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Noting the time of 1056. And based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served on the respondents and that the respondents are not here. I further order that the respondent or I further find that the respondents are in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B, Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. and Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.1.H. I further order the respondents to correct these violations by September 17, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondents and costs in the amount of $14.19 is also assessed. I will enter a cease and desist order for five years. and that in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on October 15, 2026, and a written order will go to the respondents with these rulings. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number three on the fine certification, NOHCC 46902025. Christopher Prasad is the code officer.

good morning crystal prasad co-compliance officer for the village of wellington case number cc 46902025 respond his name is emily maudlin brett maudlin property address one four four two two blackberry drive wellington florida the hearing date was april 16th 2026 The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.1, 13-2.b.2, 13-3.b.1, and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.b, 6.4.1.a.5.bb. 6.4.1.a.5.h, 6.4.1.a.5.x, and 7.8.2.a-g on or before July 16th will pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order also contains Schedule of fine certification hearing on August 20th, 2026. If the code-compliant division was not contacted as required and or the violation were not corrected. An inspection on July 17th, 2026 found the property still in violation of Walton Code Section 13-2.B.1, the garage door in a state of deterioration. All other violations were corrected. A follow-up inspection on July 21, 2026 and August 11, 2026 found the violations still do exist. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspections. I request the photographs be entered as evidence. So entered. A pacer search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list of pendants filed against the property. Staff has been in contact with the property owner since the beginning of the case. During the most recent communication, the property owner was advised that the only item that remained to be corrected was the deteriorated garage door as of July 17, 2026. Since that time, staff has received no response from the property owner and the property remains in violation. The Code Compliance Division recommend the respondent be found in violation of the Order Voluntary Code Section 13-2.B.1 and the respondent be assessed of fine pursuant to Section 2-382 of the Code of Ordinance and Section 162092-B of the Florida Statute. In determining the fine amount, the special magistrate must consider the following factors. The gravity of the violation, actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator at the same property. As to the gravity of the violation, the violation is moderate. The garage door is visibly deteriorated with peeling and damaged material along the lower portions of the door. The condition negatively impacts the exterior appearance and maintenance of the property. As to the actions taken by the violator, the property owner was advised the remaining violation as of July 17, 2026, and the most recent inspection, no corrective action has been observed. staff has received no response from the property owner and the property remains a violation. As to any previous violation of the same section committed by the violator on the same property, this is the first violation of this code section. BASED ON THESE FACTORS, THE CO-COMPLIANCE DIVISION RECOMMEND RESPONSING VSS THE FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25 PER DAY COMMENCING ON JULY 17TH AND IN ADDITION TO THE COST IN THE AMOUNT OF $49.69, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST ASSESSED IN THE ORDER. BOTH CONTINUE TO RECRUIT UNTIL THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTED.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington versus Emily J. Modlin and Brent C. Modlin, NOH-CC4690-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 11.03. Based upon the evidence, photos, and testimony in this matter, I find that on February 19, 2026, that the respondent in the special magistrate entered into a stipulation wherein among the many violations, specifically the Respondent agreed to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. Further, I find that the respondent has not corrected this violation. When hearing the testimony evidence and photos and the requirements of Florida statute and Wellington Code, when I consider the gravity of the violation, the garage door and this violation have a negative impact on the neighborhood and the property, this particular property. Respondent's efforts to correct these violations, and while the respondent has made efforts to correct violations, or correct the violations of the other items, they have not made, despite being advised that the garage door is still in violation, they have not made any efforts to correct that violation. And as far as the specific garage door violation, there is no history of that. Taking those matters into consideration, I determined that a fine of $25 per day for this violation is assessed against the respondent, which began on July 17, 2026. Costs in the amount of $49.69 are also assessed, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number four, undefined certification, NOHCC 5011-2025. Christopher Persaud is the code officer.

Good morning. Christopher Prasad, Co-Combinance Officer from the Village of Wellington. Case number CC5011-2025. Respondent's name, Michelle Schumer, Stephen Schumer. Property address, 982 Lemongrass Lane, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was April 16th, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.1, 13-3.b.3, and Wellington Land Development Regulation Sections 6.4.1.a.1, 6.4.1.a.5.k, 6.4.1.a.5.bb, 6.4.1.a.5.h. 7.8.2.a.g. 7.8.7.b. Honor before July. 16th, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on August 20th, 2026 if the code compliance division was not contacted as required and order violation was not corrected. An inspection on July 17, 2026 found the violation still in violation of Land Amendment Regulation Section 7.8.7.B, Missing Mulch in the Landscape. All other violations have been corrected. A follow-up inspection on July 24th, August 4th, August 7th, August 11th found the violation still does exist. Photos were taken to represent the condition of the property at that time of the various inspections. I request the photographs be entered in as evidence. So entered. A pacer search found the respondent does not have a pendant bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against the property. Staff has been in contact with the property owner throughout the case. During the course of the case, the property owner was granted several extensions as well as a stipulation agreement providing additional time to bring the property into compliance. On July 12, 2026, the property owner emailed staff requesting a one-month extension to complete the required mulch. due to the case have been open for more than nine months several previous extensions and stipulation agreement have already been granted the request for additional extension was denied the property owner was advised that if the remaining violations could not be corrected prior to hearing staff recommended property owner attend the august 20th 2026 hearing and request additional time for compliance from the magistrate The co-compliance division recommend the respondent be found in violation of the order, the Wellington Land Development Regulations Section 7.8.7.B. And the respondent be assessed to find pursuit into Section 2-3A.A.2 of the Code of Ordinance and the Section 162.092 of the Florida Statute. In determining the fine amount, the Special Magistrate must consider the following factors. The gravity of the violation and the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and his previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property. As to the gravity of the violation, the violation is minor. The absence of the required mulch in the property is not meeting the village established landscape and property maintenance standards. As to actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, the property owner has taken steps to address the other violations associated with the case. However, Several extensions of stipulation agreement provide additional time to achieve compliance, as despite the additional time provided, the mulch violation still remains. Any previous Any previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, this is the first violation of this code section. Based on these factors, Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be assessed the fine in the amount of $25 per day commencing on July 17, 2026, in addition to the cost amount of $47.48 which does include the cost assessed in the order, both continuing to occur until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Michelle Schwimmer and Stephen K. Schwimmer, case number NOH-CC5011-2025, is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1110, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent who is not present. Further, that on April 16th, 2026, respondent and the special magistrate entered into a stipulation wherein the respondent agreed to correct numerous violations including but not limited to Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. Further, based upon the evidence and testimony and photos, I find that the respondent has not corrected that violation. After hearing the testimony, evidence, and photos, and considering the requirements of Florida law and Wellington code, and looking at the violation first, the gravity of the violation, the negative visual impact to the property and the negative impact to the neighborhood, that the respondent's efforts to correct the violation, while the respondent has made efforts to correct the other violations, they've been advised and have not moved to correct the violation of the OF WELLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTION .7.8.7.B. AND THE HISTORY OF THAT SPECIFIC VIOLATION AT THAT PROPERTY IS NONE. CONSIDERING THOSE, I DETERMINE THAT A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25 PER DAY PER VIOLATION IS ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, WHICH BEGAN ON JULY 17, 2026. COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $47.48 ARE FURTHER ASSESSED. AND I WILL PROVIDE A WRITTEN ORDER TO THE RESPONDENTS WITH MY RULING. THANK YOU. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 6 on the fine certification, NOHCC 7-1-2026. Staff is requesting an extension to the September 17, 2026 hearing with a fine certification hearing scheduled for October 15, 2026 with a potential fine of $25 per day.

So granted.

Thank you. We're going to move to item number 7 on the fine certification, NOHCC 205-2026. Johnson Joseph is the code officer.

Johnson Joseph, code compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. The case number is NOH-CC-205-2026. The respondent names are Chadwick J. Walters and Kimberly Dranco Walters. The priority address is 15170 Meadowood Drive, Wellington, Florida. The respondent was ordered to correct the violations of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. The roof, the mailbox, and the post stained and or discolored. And 13-2.B.2, driveway and sidewalk stained and or discolored. And the driveway is in a state of deterioration. Driveway is cracked and needs to be repaired. In the Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.A.7.B, mulch missing from the landscape area on or before July 16th, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on August 20th, 2026 if the code compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on July 17th, 2026, found the property still in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B and 13-2.B.2 and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.A.7.B. A follow-up inspection on August 13th and 18th, 2026, found the violation still exists. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the inspections. I request that the photos be entered as evidence.

So entered.

A PACER search file respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against this property. Contact with the property owner slash representative. I have been in contact with the property owner, Mr. Chadwick. whom I have met at the property on July 17, 2026. During our meeting, I had explained all the outstanding violations, and Mr. Chadwick stated that the surfaces are not dirty, but are simply just how they are. He had mentioned that he previously attempted to address the violations through pressure washing and other methods without any success, and he had requested that I speak with my supervisor to see what could be done. I later emailed Mr. Chadwick on August 14, 2026, to confirm that the violations are indeed valid after speaking with my supervisor, and if he opposes the violations, he will need to attend a hearing to contest his case. And as of today, I have not heard back from Mr. Chadwick, and the violation is still present. The Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the Order of Wellington Code Section 13-2.B. point one and thirteen dash two point two point two and Wellington land development regulation section seven point eight point seven point B and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to the section two dash three eight point a point two of the code of the ordinance and section one sixty two dot zero nine two B of the Florida statutes And determining the amount of the fine, the special magistrate must consider the following factors. One, the gravity of the violation. Two, any action taken by the violator to correct the violations. And three, any previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator on the property. As to the gravity of the violations, the violations are unsightly and affects the appearance of the surrounding properties. Has to the action taken by the violator to correct the violations. No action has been taken to bring the violation into compliance. Has to any previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property. There are no prior violations of this code section on record on this property. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation commencing on July 17, 2026, in addition to costs in the amount of $34.48, which does include costs assessed in the order, but continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Chadwick J. Walters, Kimberly Drinko Walters, NOHCC-205-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 11-16. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification in hearing for today was properly served on the respondents who are not present. Further, that on June 18th, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations to Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1 and Code Section 13-2.B.2. Further, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that these violations have not been corrected. After hearing the evidence and testimony and photos and considering the requirements of Florida statutes and Wellington Code, I reviewed the gravity of this violation and it is a visual negative impact to the property as well as the neighborhood. The respondent has not made any efforts to correct these violations. and the respondent does not have a history of violations at this address. Based upon the foregoing, I determine that a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent to begin on July 17, 2026. Further costs in the amount of $34.48 are assessed, and that written order will go to the respondent with this ruling.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 8 on the fine certification and 08 CC 1142 2026 staff is requesting an extension to the September 17 2026 hearing fine certification hearing schedule for October 15 2026 with a potential final $50 per day granted. Thank you move to item number 9 and 08 CC 1536 2026 as a como is the court officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC1536-2026. Respondent name is Daniel Rosario. Property address is 12940 Buckland Court, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was July 16, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-3.B.1, garbage container not completely screened from view, and 22-9.C, commercial vehicle parked in driveway and not completely screened from view, on or before July 22, 2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on August 20th, 2026 if the Code Compliance Division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on July 23rd, 2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-3.B.1 and 22-9.c. Follow-up inspections on July 28th, August 3rd, August 10th, August 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, and 19th of 2026 found the violation still exists. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspections. I request the photos be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

pacer search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against this property contact with the representative i've communicated with daniel regarding the violations on the property on april 16th 2026 daniel advised that he ordered a car cover for the commercial vehicle which was expected to arrive on April 23, 2026. I advised Daniel that a follow-up inspection would be conducted to verify compliance. On May 12, 2026, I contacted Air We Go and spoke with Victor, who advised that Daniel was unavailable. I left a message requesting that Daniel contact me regarding the code case. I have not received any further communication from Daniel, and subsequent inspections found that the violations remain. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of the order, Wellington Code Sections 13-3.B.1 and 22-9.C, and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to Section 2-38 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 162.09 of the Florida Statutes. In determining the amount of the fine, the Special Magistrate must consider the following factors. The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property. As to the gravity of the violations, the unscreened garbage container and commercial vehicle are visible from the street, negatively impacting the residential appearance of the property and surrounding neighborhoods. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, Daniel advised that a cover had been ordered for the commercial vehicle. However, subsequent inspections found that the commercial vehicle and garbage container remained unscreened and the property remains in violation. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, there was a previous violation involving a commercial vehicle that was not completely screened from view. No previous violations were found regarding the screening of the garbage container. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation commencing on July 23, 2026, and in addition to costs in the amount of $48.67, which does include costs assessed in the order both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right, thank you very much. And in the matter of Wellington v. Daniel Rosario, NOH-CC 1536-2026, is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 1122, based upon the testimony, evidence, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification and hearing for today was properly served on the respondent who is not here. Further, that on July 16th, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations of Wellington Code Section 13-3.B.1 and Code Section 22-9.C. Further, that these violations are ongoing and have not been corrected. After hearing the evidence, testimony, photos, and considering the requirements of Florida law and Wellington Code, I reviewed the gravity of the violations, which is the negative visual impact to not only this residential neighborhood but to the entire surrounding neighborhood, that the respondent has not made any efforts to correct the violations and that the respondent does not have a history of the same violations at the same location. Based upon that, I determine that a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent, which began on July 23, 2026. Costs in the amount of $48.67 are assessed against the respondent, and I will follow this up with a written order. Thank you. Thank you.

That's the end of the agenda.

All right. Thank you very much for everything, and this meeting is adjourned at 1124. Thank you.