Magistrate Hearing - Special Meeting

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If you're going to testify today, please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,

so help you God? Yeah. Are there any opening comments?

Yes, sir. Good morning. The special magistrate will hear all cases on the agenda. The meeting is recorded and televised on Wellington government access channel 18 on Comcast cable. Testimony from Wellington staff and the respondent will be under oath. Although formal rules of evidence do not apply, fundamental due process shall be observed. The special magistrate may ask questions of either party to determine pertinent facts. Code compliance officer will present his or her case to the special magistrate. Service of all required notices associated with the case and all photograph 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 or ordinances, he or she may 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 thirty days from the date of the hearing. Failure to remit the payment as ordered may result in a lien being filed against the property.

If the respondent if the in the event of 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 displays a 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 a special magistrate assess a fine. The primary object of a hearing is not to unduly penalize anyone, but to obtain compliance with Wellington codes 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 you have been sworn in. Please ensure all cell phones are turned off or in silent mode at this time.

:Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda?

:No, sir.

:I have reviewed and approved the consent agenda. Please call the first case.

We'll move to item number three on the new business, NO8CC57992025. Shane Duffy is the code officer.

Is someone present for this case? Yes. Mister Stone? Yeah. Come on up to the podium, Thank you. Good morning. Morning.

Shanay Duffy, village of Wellington co compliance officer. The case number is NOHCC57992025. Respondent names, Leonard Stone and Stephanie Stone. Property address, 756 Lemongrass Lane, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV NOH was served by certified mail. Return receipt received. I request the service of the NOV NOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was 05/04/2026. Inspections on May 2026, from the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section, 6.4.1.8.5. H, hedge missing from front of fence. Wellington Code Section thirteen-2.b. One, walls, side by AC unit and front, stained and or discolored.

Land Development Regulation Section 6.4-one. 8.5.6, mechanical AC unit not screened from view. The same inspection found full compliance of code Section thirteen-3.b-one, garbage and recycling containers not screened from view. Partial compliance of Code Section thirteen-2.b-one, trimmed, stained and or discolored, was corrected. The walls remained stained.

Full compliance of Land Development Regulation Section 6.4-one, A5BB, fence, stained and or discolored. Full compliance of Wellington Code Section 13.2.B. Two, driveway and sidewalk, stained and or discolored. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent violations at the time of the inspections. I request the photos be entered into evidence.

So entered.

Staff conducted a Pesa search which found that the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or Liz Pendens filed against this property. The village has had contact with the owner, Mr. Stone, through multiple emails and phone conversations. Mr. Stone has stated that he does not agree with the violations, that this is nitpicking, and that other residents have similar issues.

Requested That

last part again? Others have

issues. Okay. Requested an exemption and was told that no exemption is available. A stipulation agreement was offered. The co compliance division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section 6.4-one. A. Five. H and 6.4-1. A. Five.

Six and Wellington Code section thirteen-two. B. One. It's recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026, to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. It's also recommended that costs incurred by the co compliance division in the amount of $12.22 be assessed and ordered to be paid within thirty 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 violations are not corrected, it's recommended that a fine certification hearing be held before the special magistrate on 07/16/2026, at 9AM at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It's also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Okay. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Yeah. Good morning. Leonard Stone. 756LemongrassLaneWellingtonFlorida33414.

Okay. Do you understand what the violations are?

Yes.

And what is your position?

So as you can see from the pictures, majority of these violations are really not visible from the street. Let's go through them. Sure.

There's no hedge in front of your fence?

JOSHUA Correct. So that's the one that I'm hoping for an exception today. The other ones, I have fixed most of them.

JOSHUA You still have your AC unit has not been

That is correct.

Okay. And let's see. And your walls are are still stained and discolored on the side.

I started painting it, and then it started raining on me. So I did half of it.

Alright. So you're gonna paint the rest of the walls to take care of that.

Yes, sir. That's it'll be this weekend. Alright. And what about the AC? So the AC unit, I will I will do that this weekend. Okay. My argument there to mister Cheneta here was that it's only an angle where you can see my AC unit. If you stand in front of my house, you do not see any of this at all.

Well, I saw it in the picture.

That's not the front of the house.

Yeah, but as long as it's from if they're on the public street and they can see it and take a picture of it,

it

has And to be

I understand that. I walk my dogs every morning, and I can show you pictures of every house Do that if I look

you know what Speeder's Lament is? The what? Speeder's Lament?

Yes.

Okay. Please give her the address of every house that you walk by.

I have. I've sent pictures.

That's fine. And how do you know that we haven't gone after them?

But the problem is you can find them is what I'm saying. Right? Like, you're looking for it, you will find it.

Well, yeah. And that's what we do. And we want you to report them, and we will make every effort to make sure everyone complies with the code. There is no exception. There is no exemption. Everybody has to comply. That's why we call it the speeder's lament. Why didn't you pull that other guy over? He was going over the speed limit. Can't pull everybody over all the time. We try to get everybody. Give us the address. We will enforce the code equally and fairly against everyone. See all these cases? These are all people who think that their neighbor isn't being inspected. I've done this for I've thousands of homes in this village by now. So trust me, we will we don't pick you're not being selected or picked on or chosen. You're not special. Sorry.

So And and I'm not saying I am. I'm not saying you guys are picking on me only.

I never your said neighbors if they're not in violation too. Trust me, we will.

I just think that there's things that like that. Like, you can look at the picture. You can't even see the AC unit.

I can see it. And this is and if I'm walking on the sidewalk, she's not even on the sidewalk. She's out on the street. So here's what I want you to do. Shield it from view. That's the code requirement. It's on the side of your house. It can be seen. If you don't want to shield from view and you wanna go to a fine if you don't wanna shield it, that's your choice. Again, I've had people come in here and say, I'm not gonna comply. And they get fined, and then they come home back and cry, why did you find me? It's your choice.

No. I don't wanna pay money for that.

So just put some hedges in front. It's not difficult to do. And you're gonna have to put hedges in front of your fence. There is no exemption. If you want an exemption, you need to get the code changed with the city council. I don't have that power. I only enforce the code as written. So if you don't like the code requirement for fencing in front of the hedges, then you need to go to the city council and propose an amendment.

The main thing why I wanted to come here today was for for the fence. So

Sure. I understand.

And the the code says, all fence walls adjacent and visible unless specifically exempt. And I ask mister Nate here, what what can I do to get it exempt? So I understand it's a fence, but I see that as a decorative, you know, white picket fence. It's not your regular fence. I have hedges on the side of my fence when I installed it. I understand that. I put that, all that. I I cleared it. I just I like the way that it looks. I don't want to cover my white picket fence. It's how I want my house to look. So I was hoping for an exception given the fact that it's a decorative white picket fence. I don't wanna cover it.

I I can understand that. But just like people wanna paint their house gold color because they like gold, that's not a color that's permitted in the village. So, again, the only answer is to go to the council.

Okay.

I don't have the authority, and the exemptions have to do with fences like in your backyard that can't be seen from the street. They don't have to do because it's a fence, it's visible from the street, and I get where you're coming from. I understand. But you're gonna have to do it, or you're gonna have to get the council to agree that decorative small fences in the front don't apply. Okay? But for now, the code says you have to have a hedge.

Okay.

Okay? I'm gonna give you till June 18 to correct it.

So a month? And if

you don't correct it, then come July, you'll be on the clock for fines from June 18 forward. And as you correct these violations, you contact this young lady here, and she'll come out, and she'll look and make sure you're in compliance. Okay? Okay. Alright. Anything further?

I didn't

get that. Could you try again?

Okay. Well, that was Siri, I believe, asking questions. So alright. Any other further questions?

I guess I have to go to the councilor. Is that what you're saying, Siri?

If you wanna get an amendment to the code to allow a Decker defense without a hedge, the answer is the council. Okay. So you could call you have a local counsel person. You could call them up and say, I'd like to come in and explain my situation. And if the counsel wants to grant that type of exemption, I don't care. It's not my call. But until then, I have to comply with the code.

My question is, is a month enough for that to happen?

So here's what I want you to do. I'll make it fair to you. Okay? If you go to the city council, you meet with go right away. Yeah. And if they say we're gonna take it under consideration, you let them know as well. And as to that one, we can give you additional time

Okay.

Until they make a decision. If the council person says, and I don't support that, we're not gonna do it. We're not gonna take it to the council, then you have the your clock is ticking. Okay. Okay? Fair Okay. Alright. Sit tight. I'm going to give you the ruling now. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find respondent is in violation of LDR Section six point four point one point a point five point h, code Section 13 dash two dot b dot one, and LDR section six point four point one point a point six.

Respondents shall have until 06/18/2026 to correct the violation or a fine not to exceed $25 per day may be imposed, together with costs in the amount of $20.12 dollars and 22¢, which are due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order. And a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should you fail to correct the violation or contact the village within the time given, a fine certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 07/16/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose fine will be given. Okay? So go take pinch paint in the walls, cover up that AC unit, go to your council person, see if you can get them to agree. And if they do, let, again, it's important that you keep us on in contact. Okay?

I have been. She could tell you.

Yeah. Okay.

I'm not hiding from it.

And pay the $12.22 as well.

For what?

That's the cost. Of what? Of this enforcement. And and explain that to you is that the village code does not wanna impose your violation costs, upon all the residents of the village. So instead, they impose it upon the violator.

I hadn't heard of this. First time I hear of it.

Well, it's in the code. Feel free to look it up.

So how do I pay for this?

You can write a check at

Well, he'll get an invoice.

You'll get an invoice for $12.22.

And what is this for?

This is the cost of mailing you notices, photocopies, phone calls. You're you're and it's only $12.20. It used to be a lot more. But the again, do you wanna pay in your taxes more money for these

I already pay enough. Well,

I understand that. But you'd pay more if we had

to pass these costs on

to all the village residents. Okay? Alright. Thank you for coming in. Have a nice day. Thank you. Call the next case.

We're gonna move to item number one on the new business, NOHCC18912025. Stefano Vigas is the court officer.

Good morning. Case number NOHCCDash1891Dash2025. Respondent name, Scribner Village Association Incorporated. Property address, 9768 Slash 9744 Scribner Lane, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV NOH was served by posted notice on 04/22/2026 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. Correction date was 05/04/2026.

An inspection on 05/05/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation sections seven dot eight dot seven dot c, hat rack trees and swell area in front of various properties, several properties found in violation, and seven dot eight dot two dot a g, missing required street trees, trees on property not per the development approval. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request that photographs be entered into evidence. So entered. A follow-up inspection on May seventh, fourteenth, and eighteenth found the violation still exist.

A pacer search found that the prop that the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against the property. Several emails have been shared between the property owners, planning and zoning, and code staff. A vegetation removal permit was applied for but was administratively withdrawn on 12/18/2025. 20250334 vegetation removal permit, Excuse me. VRP was withdrawn due to no submittal to any of any plans and and activity on the part of Scribner Village.

Phone calls have also been made. Staff was con contacted by Larry Cortez from Wyand Cortez and Cortez on 04/27/2026. He inquired the posted notice and asked which properties were in violation. I emailed him the list of properties and followed up with phone calls. I was connected with the secretary, and she left a message to him regarding a stipulation agreement, and the hearing case is on 05/21/2026.

The compliance division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington land development regulation section seven dot eight dot seven dot c and seven dot eight dot two dot a g. It is recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026 to correct the violations or be charged excuse me. A fine not to exceed $25 per day for each per violation for each day the violation continue the violations continue to exist. It is also recommended that the cost incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.65 be assessed and ordered to be paid within thirty days of the date of this hearing meeting. A cease and desist ordered 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM at the Wellington Municipal Complex at 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Okay. I assume you're the attorney for the association?

I am. Special magistrate Larry Cortez on behalf of Scripner Village.

Okay. What do you have to say for yourself?

Well well, certainly not for myself.

Not for you personally, but for your client.

For my client.

And by the way, congratulations. You're the first lawyer who did not raise their hand to be sworn in.

Oh. You're

smart to

know that.

I I I think I did it a couple years ago too. I I I held my hand.

I mean

Yeah. It's tempting.

You just I know. You're the guy's telling you to do it. And Right. So, okay. Obviously, we can see the pictures. Obviously, there's a problem.

Agreed. And so off the bat, special magistrate, I consent to the cost.

Okay.

The so that tree in particular, I don't dispute that tree. I think some of the other trees

You're talking about the hat racking or the wrong trees?

With the hat racking.

Yeah. Mean, some are pretty blatant. Some are marginal.

Right.

All

right. If we can break this in parts, I would look at some of the marginal ones.

Okay.

And the concern there is that if, number one, I don't think we have a firm standard on hat racking in terms of defining that

and We have an arborist here today with us, or someone who can Mr. I'm sorry. Mr. Newell, you want to come up? We have an expert who will tell you.

Excellent.

Obviously, there's one tree. There was one picture where they took every bit of the vegetation off completely.

I've I've some of these are certainly not in dispute. Yeah.

And that's pretty bad there. That one obviously So isn't not

I think that one might be the first one to discuss.

All right. Go back to that tree. These are obviously clearly more than hat racked. They're denuded, I guess, be a fancy word for that. They may even be dead at this point.

You weren't

selling? What's the game plan?

I think those are easiest. Those are ones. The ones that show, you know, considerable growth. So we were first

So like this is a good example.

I haven't been sworn in as yet.

Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to

give is the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

Okay. So may I question him, or do you want to question him?

No, please go ahead. Again, I don't like this particular tree here, I don't think that's in dispute.

Okay. Then move on. That's great. Obviously, that one's probably a wrong plant that shouldn't be there.

No, no. I think that's probably the proper plant, but has grown back. That tree is not in dispute.

Is this tree in dispute?

It is. Explain. Go back to that

picture, please.

Well, that tree is not in dispute. But what we're looking at is well, the first part is, for our code, if you remove more than 25% of the canopy, that is over pruning. Okay. And then hat racking is when you get to 50% or in some cases 100% is hat racking. The trees that we're looking at here has been after it's been hat racked and we have new growth.

So they do grow back sometimes. Depends on how the condition of the tree. So the new growth is there. But the tree was hat racked And when you hat rack it, especially severely hat rack it, the new growth is now attached and that attachment is weak. And especially when it grows back, having a weak attachment in hurricane zone heavy winds, that's now more prone to snapping off. So that's the reason why our code requires it to be removed and replaced. Okay. To leave the tree in place. We do have exceptions. It depends on how severe the HATRAC is.

We did provide that list to the HOA in terms of which trees can remain and which ones should be removed. So that's what we've provided so far.

So how many HATRAC trees do we have total?

We have a list of about

11 trees.

Okay. Out of those 11, are there any that you dispute?

So if we can page through, I was hoping to have so like that one, for instance, and perhaps that's what

Because remember, there's two violations here. One is hat racking and one is they've planted the wrong tree.

Well, understood. But I believe that's a hat wreck. One's been identified as hat wrecked. Yes. Okay.

And hearing what the gentleman has said, we're still looking at a tree that has grown back. In other words, you know, I'm not suggesting that a property owner can commit a violation and then just hope that it just grows back. But here we are, and that one has. So our position is that that tree should be left intact. The alternative is to tear it out and replace it with something that's going to be demonstrably weaker, right?

Right. I get it. So what's your position on, for example, this tree that's shown here?

So, again, we have provided them a list of the trees that we feel can remain. That was emailed to them September of last year. Okay. And we have not received any response regarding that to date. So that's something again we can discuss, the ones that can stay based on the condition of the tree. So we've already looked at it and we have given them a list of the ones that we will essentially told them that we will watch based on. Because again, it may look like this and six months from now the tree can actually die. So, but we have made that assessment and we were working with the HOA. We just need them to communicate with us. We have not been able to get that communication.

I've emailed them several times over the past six months or more. The last email was December of last year. No, sorry, March of this year. We And haven't received a response, so that's why we moved the case forward.

Okay. So you you you understand that there's a clearly bunch that are hat wrecked that are violations. And that's you're gonna have to remove those. What I suggest that the association do is got really, in my opinion, two options at this point. Just remove the ones they told you and replace them. That's option one. Option two would be to get their own arborist to go out to the trees that you dispute, have him examine them, and coordinate with the village. And if they can come to a consensus, yes or no. But lay opinion versus expert opinion, I'm always gonna be swayed by the expert opinion.

I I I guess one one lack of clarity is all the trees that are on the list for today, are those are are those a mixture of some that are we are in this wait and see approach? Or are these all in violation period?

The ones that are on the list were the ones that are in violation based on the fact that they were hat wrecked.

So wait and see trees, they are not part of this list. That's a separate grouping that's already been communicated. I think I could cut this off a little bit.

Right.

Let's say there are 11 trees they've identified. There's three that you think have grown back sufficiently that they're no longer in violation. The question is is because of the hat racking, their health is in jeopardy. You're gonna need to get an expert to go out and look at those three trees and say, I will sign off as an arborist that these trees have survived the hat racking, and we'll coordinate with the village. And the village will say, okay. That's fair enough. We'll we'll cut it down to eight. But if your arborist goes out and says, yeah, you killed the tree, it's gonna be dead in six months no matter what it looks like. Because I know you look at that, I look at that, it looks fine. But internally, this tree may be dying, and what we don't want is a weak tree that could get in coming up the hurricane season fall apart because of that.

So if you wanna challenge the 11 trees that are on the list, any of those trees, you're gonna the association's gonna have get an arborist to go out and determine it's safe, tell that to village, and then they'll coordinate and do their arborist thing, and we'll go from there. And if they all agree, and it only needs to be eight replaced, so be it. That's fine.

So so in that vein, and I think this, if acceptable, probably moves it forward pretty quickly. The traditional thirty days to accomplish that is difficult for the association. And admittedly, this is an internal problem. The swale trees are maintained by the homeowners. And so, in order for the association to remove them, to make any adjustments that the village would prefer to make, it first has to compel the homeowner to do it, right?

So we actually started that process on many of the trees back in September in response to that communication. I had written myself to some of the homeowners. So the process of trying to compel them to do what, you know, eventually needs the village requires them to do, particularly on the ones that are not disputed, what we would ask for is ninety days to comply so that we can complete that process. Because from our point of view, if the homeowner doesn't comply, then the association is free to go in and take the action itself. But we have to provide that homeowner the opportunity and notice to or the notice and opportunity to cure.

Okay. What's the village's position on giving them additional time?

I guess my only issue is that this has been going on since September. They've had other property owners that have done the removal and replacement. So I'm not sure what the additional time is going to provide, considering it's been September.

Why don't I compromise? We'll give them two months. We'll give them until July 16.

Thank you, Special

Counsel. Okay. Right. Anything further on any of this?

JAMES No. JAMES Okay.

All right. So based on the evidence and I assume that the association documents do allow them to the association. If the owner doesn't comply, you can go and do it, fine them, charge them. Right?

Correct. That's the

all the older docs don't have that.

Right. No. We had we had that authority. We just have the process Okay. In

All right. And I do suggest that you submit to the village all the letters that you write to the homeowners telling them to do it, to show that you're proceeding forward.

I can do that.

I think you should do that. That's my recommendation.

Okay. And

so will the special magistrate be entering an order today or Yes. With these findings?

Yes. Okay. That's Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find the respondent is in violation of LDR Section 7.8.2. A G and LDR seven point eight point seven point c. Respondents shall have until 07/16/2026 to correct the violations or a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation may be imposed. Cost in the amount these costs are $13.65, which you've agreed to pay.

Yes.

A cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should the respondent fail to correct the violation or contact the village within the time given, a fine certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 08/20/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose fine will be given. Okay?

I missed the compliance date.

You have until July 16.

Thank you.

And then if you don't, you have August 20. And again, we'll work with you. If you get an arborist to come out and say that tree's healthy, they'll show it to him. And hopefully, they'll come to a compromise agreement on that. We just want healthy trees.

Understood. Okay.

Alright. Thank you for coming in. Good to see you.

Thank you, special man.

Have a good day.

Call the next case. We're going to move

to item number two on the new business, NOHCC3597-twenty25.

Nicholas Grisevo as the court officer.

Good morning.

Morning. Nicholas, code officer with the village of Wellington presenting code case NOHDashCCDash3597Dash2025. Respondent names, Chaim Cohen Saban, Joseph Cohen Saban, Zazette Cohen Saban, and Shoshana Cohen Saban. Property address, 678 Via Tuscana, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOVNOH was served by posted notice on 03/02/2026 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 NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was 03/12/2026 with continuances granted on March 19 and 04/16/2026. An inspection on 05/04/2026 found the the following items remain beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five dot one. BP 25Dash2728. Work done. Roof repair without the issuance of a building permit. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on May 15 and 05/20/2026 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 list pendants filed against this property. On 08/04/2025, staff notified Chaim Saban by email that a courtesy extension was granted to the court case. On 10/09/2025, Chaim came into Village Hall and spoke to the code department regarding the violation detail.

On 10/22/2025, Haim visited, Village Hall and spoke to the code and building department staff. His contact was documented and forwarded to chief building inspector William Wyatt to arrange a time to visit the property and evaluate the scope of the work conducted. On 01/08/2026, staff provided these March special magistrate day and time to Chaim via email. On 03/18/2026, Chaim was notified that the case should be continued to April 16. On 03/30/2026, I spoke with Heim regarding, the co case and explained his continuance request to May 21, to the May 21 hearing was approved.

I then reviewed the previous events of the case, with, with him. On 04/27/2026, I sent an email to Chaim regarding the scheduled time of the May 21 hearing. On 05/14/2026, I emailed Chaim to inform him that he would be allowed to have a court reporter attend as well as his eight witnesses. The code compliance division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five dot one. It is recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026 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 co compliance division in the amount of $15.21 be assessed and ordered to be paid within thirty 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM 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.

Okay. Were you sworn in?

Not yet.

Okay. Please raise your right hand. That's your left hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about

to give is the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth, sir? You god. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Cohen Saban. 553 Northwest 204th Street, Miami, Florida 33169. The question resident is 678 Dia Toscan in Wellington.

Okay. You've heard what the code enforcement officer stated. What is your

It's incorrect in its entirety. And I'm going to give the evidence and the testimony to clarify that.

Okay.

On or about May 2025, one of the neighbors complained to the village of Wellington that there is roofing replacement and a major roofing repair done on the roof of 678 Via Toscana, which is incorrect. And I actually have signed sworn statement by that individual, which is next door 684 Viatto Scala, stating in detail that it was a repair to the roof, which mean no replacement, not major replacement of the roof. As you can see in the photo, which I have an additional photo to provide them another about 12:40

Do you want do you can I read something to you?

Sure.

Okay. This is what the code says.

Yes.

Any person who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change any impact resistant coverings. You admit that there were repairs done to the roof. Correct?

May may may I are are

I'm asking you a question. Answer the question.

Yes. A minor. And I called village

Well, I didn't ask you. Again, please answer my question.

A minor repair.

Okay. Yes. Do you see the photos?

Yes.

Are those the repairs that were made?

Partially, yes.

What do you mean partially?

Partially. Some of the there is some repairs around the vents, the exhaust vent.

This large strip of black is not a repair?

They are they are a repair. However, I contact the village of Wellington on several occasions, which I have names here. They write on the 2nd Floor. They're willing to come at any time. I got Mussolimarri. I got Ramona Bafumo. I got

And what did these They

advised the following. And I'm caught. If there is no replacement of material on the roof, underlying repair plywood. There is no permits required on a minor repair. And I'm willing to call them right now, and they can come and Well,

you have prepared ahead of time, because they're not here. But again, I have someone from the village who's going to explain to you that that is not a correct statement.

It's the actual correct statement. Was a repair. Okay.

With all due respect, sir. I have the evidence here.

You don't have any evidence. You're you have what we call as hearsay. Hearsay is I someone else told me, but they're not here to say it themselves.

They told me to call them if there is any issue. I mean, it's it's a minor repair. There is no replacement of the roof.

Again, you keep saying let me read the code to you again.

Okay. Go ahead, please.

Erect, install, enlarge, alter, and repair. Repair. Any repair of your roof, the only question is is whether you repaired it or not. And you admitted under oath that you did repair.

A minor repair.

You keep saying the word minor. Are you a roofing contractor?

I'm not a roofing contractor, but I do have a roofer receipt stating a minor repair to the roof. I do have a contract.

You have a written affidavit?

I have a written affidavit.

Notarized by a roofing contractor? I assigned Alright. Present it to him, and he'll give it to me. Do you have a can you give it to us?

Yeah. Sure.

Alright.

This is one.

May I may I see a copy, please?

Yeah. I I wanna see what he's gonna present first, obviously.

This is the Okay. Sure. So let me give you all this. Okay? This is the Do you have extra copies?

I do have. Yes. Provide the copies to the village too.

Oh. So this is the witnesses' statement. This is the

that's for me. That's the extra copy from year. Thank you.

Well, you want to present it to the British Council.

You have an extra or this

is solely This is the only one I have. You can make a copy. Thank you.

You only don't have a copy, that's okay.

Yeah. Thank you.

Alright. We have the the first

Hold on. Hold on. You gotta give me a chance.

Okay. The first to set.

So I okay. I'm not sure what the purpose of this letter is. Okay?

So we have we have the two witnesses, the next door neighbor, stating that's a repair, a minor repair that was done on the roof. And they sign it on the second page. That's the tenant resigning. And the other one is the roofer, a copy of the check that paid and the actual printed receipt invoice by the Allianz

Okay. So Yeah. Go ahead. What was presented is a check for $700 to Allied USA Service, repair leaking areas. The next is somebody's driver's license. Is that the guy who did the work?

No. The driver license is actually is the tenants that that Okay. Yeah. The tenants that where is the damages the the roof leak occurred.

Okay. So he states that he replaced the leak from the master bathroom? Yes. Okay. You required him to get an a licensed roofer to the inspect?

Yes.

And he applied roof cement around the areas of the contact. So he says no part of the roof was replaced, no roofing materials removed. Correct. It was ceiling work, essentially. Correct. And and so this is the person who

says he contacted the village. Yes.

So it's a letter from the tenant saying he contacted village to ask about obtaining a permit, which, by the way, would be done by the contractor, not by the tenant. Which would your You'll get your chance. Thank you. We were informed that no permit is required for roof, for repair, or emergency repair work unless a portion of the roof is being replaced. Correct. Okay. You can see that letter. I'm not sure. That's hearsay anyway. And then we have another invoice. I don't know if this applies. This is for kitchen compound finish with two windows and kitchen area popcorn ceiling. That's probably something that's supposed back to him. That's okay.

That they're fixing the roof.

And this apparently is a letter signed by the neighbor

Yes.

Saying, I questioned the roofer what he was doing. And he said repairs on the back roof. I asked him about his permit. And he said no permit needed for repair.

She's the complaint of the village, the person I'm

I understand. Yes.

JULIET Let

me state the records.

JULIET Here you go. This is a letter from the neighbor.

JULIET May I?

JULIET Okay.

Yeah. So the roofer doing work in Wellington for the last twenty three years, Elliott. And he advised me based on the fact, before he started the work, I asked him, permit is required? He told me not to repair.

Okay. Again, did you hear me read the code?

I understand. What

was the word that was in the code? What was the word?

Repair.

Thank you. However We have some you'll get it more time. I believe we have someone from the village to clarify what whether this needs a permit or not.

You want to speak? No, go ahead.

Hi. My name's William Wyatt. I'm with the village of Wellington Building Department. I've had prior correspondence with this individual. My first question, which I'd like to Laurie

Cohen, on behalf of the Village. Mr. Cohen Sabin, do you know exactly what work was performed by the individual or the company that repaired the roof?

Yes. I observe and so putting, what it's called, Arnan for wet or dry surface, Ampibocator professional grade, which I have a copy of that. That was due to seal it. And not to mention that during the storm of the rain, if we were waited a week or two weeks to get all this process done, the major damages will continue to occur. There is no replacement of any part of the roof. It's emergency repair, minor, especially around the perimeter of the follow that I sent and the exhaust fan, which from time to time, they get cracked and you have to seal them, so you don't get water inside the home.

You provided an invoice from Allied

Yes.

Yes.

Allied Industries or Allied Roofing, yes. Do you know whether they are a licensed roofing contractor in the state of Florida?

They are, and they're actually doing work in Wellington for many, many years. And they're very familiar with the code, with the personnel here, with the building department. And I called myself right before they start. And actually, I called three times, and I visit twice, by the way. I spoke to Mr.

Warren as well. And I ask for a repair in that capacity of what I just told the village if I need a permit. They say, no, you don't need. Now, I understand what you're coming from, but when I speak to building department, inspector department, when I visit the village of Wellington and inquire three or four times about it, and all the whole telling me minor repair for what you described, you don't need the permits. I don't want to tell me.

I would like to present some testimony from our expert.

JACKIE Sure. Well, I wouldn't call him an expert.

Well, he is wants a chief building know

the department. He can advise what the Well village requires.

So Mr. Wyatt, what did you state your name and your position with the village.

My name is William Wyatt. I'm with the village of Wellington Building Department, and I'm the chief building inspector.

And did you inspect the work that was being performed on this roof?

I was the homeowner contacted us to evaluate the dispute over if work took place on the flat roof that's on the photographs. I took the drone out there. I evaluated that I could verify that a new roof covering was installed over top of an existing roof covering.

Okay. And

under the Florida Building Code and the Village Of Wellington Code, is a permit required for the work that you were able to observe through the drone?

Through the drone and through the photos provided, yes.

Okay. And with respect to

While we got that, could you identify what is in the picture right now?

What is that is a cap sheet. It's a peel and stick membrane. It goes it's a surface rolled. So if you go back to the other photo, you can see that that's gone over top of the prior roof.

There

are some regulations that discuss the distinction between a recovering versus replacement. Could you explain that to the special magistrate?

Sure.

So per the Florida existing building code, which this falls under, recoverings are not allowed. They have to be it has to go down to the deck because now that we've identified that there's a leak, the stuff beneath it can be compromised. So you're essentially putting good over top of bad. And in relation to the cap sheet going over top of another cap sheet, there's there at this time is no other material that is has a product approval to go over another one to adhere, essentially. So effectively, we've got something that's installed outside of the perimeters of the code. Okay.

Will that cross examine, please?

Hold on. You'll get a chance. I'll give you plenty of time. Any further questions? No, that covers No, I'm asking Laurie. Not you I'll

Not at this time.

Have a further question. So we have two issues. We have an improper covering installed. And would you consider the work that was done a minor repair? Not like it matters, but I'm just asking you because he keeps saying minor.

The work that was done was a roof recover.

Okay. Alright. You may ask questions now.

Question. Those photo that you show, do you have any evidence or any photo that the roof, the rolling of the roof that you claimed that was putting on top or replaced, as you state on records, there is no photo to reflect that. I don't see any photo. I don't see that the link that I see that there is there is a black tar around, but there is no evidence whatsoever, based on the photo, that it was replaced.

It wasn't replaced.

Not Do you replaced, or you claim that there is another sheet on top. Can you please provide an evidence to that?

All right. Go back to the picture showing the material. Right there. That your roof? Is that your roof?

That's my roof. 678 Viatroscana.

Okay. And do you see the material?

I see the material, but that's not the material that cover the roof that they claim. You need about 15 sheets like that. This is, they put that on the perimeter of the leaking area all around, and showing all the evidence.

So they did lay the material on top, did they not? I'm asking you a question. Answer the Did they lay that material on top of the roof?

Can I

Did they lay that material on top of the roof?

Yes. It's Aperol, yes.

Yes. So they did do it? Yes. So you've now admitted that they covered on top of existing No. Okay. I'm going to answer the question. Answer yes or no. Absolutely. Did they lay this material on your roof?

Partially on the perimeter of the roof. Partially.

Not not as it claimed, the entire roof, the flat roof.

No. Okay. But you you admit that they did lay it on part?

Yes. As I said before, it's a minor repair. Yes. It's a minor repair. Yeah.

Okay. Do you understand

Yeah. Go ahead.

It I don't care. You you could hang up on this word minor. There is nothing in the code that says minor repairs are excluded. That's number one. The code specifically just uses the word repair. Number two, you're being told that you would not be allowed to do this because covering an existing portion of the roof with another laying layering covering is not permitted by the South Florida Building Code. Okay? So you've admitted that they've they have covered it. You've admitted that they've made repairs. Do you have any further questions for this gentleman?

I have the evidence to prove otherwise. Prove what? What I just state?

That you just testified that they did do it.

Not on the entire roof.

Okay. I accept I accept that they didn't do it on the entire roof. Doesn't matter, though.

Can I put this on the records?

You put anything on on the record. I'll be happy to look

at it.

Thank you. You've admitted that they partially covered on top of the existing cover. Okay. So you're suggesting that this is where they covered on top of the cover. You're admitting that on the record?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. As you can see, these are pictures of the work that was performed, which is Partial. Evident you keep saying partial like it makes a difference.

I have to do the repair.

The emergency repair have to be done. In your house,

if there is a major leak, what do you

do? That's not the point. I'm not concerned the fact that Look, if you have an emergency, you make the you you do the temporary. You could put a tarp over it. It's a temporary block. What I'm suggesting is is that you're required to get a permit to do the work because the work you did is probably not legal.

I called three times. Well

And again,

had to really have to press the same time. Again,

Yes. Again,

you called three times, and you probably didn't give the detail necessary, such as we intend to put a cover on top of the existing cover. If you had explained it possibly that way, you might have gotten a different answer. I think to clarify, I don't think you accurately presented what was happening to the to the roof, and I think that is exactly why you think you got information that was inaccurate. So here's what's going to happen. Do you have any further questions for anyone over here?

So you don't have any evidence of the entire 10 or 12 roll sheet that lay down on the perimeter or the entire flat roof. Do you have any photo of it? Because what I see is half a roll. And to do the entire flat roof, you need about seven to eight.

In the photo, you've got two roles there.

Yeah, I see two roles.

Do have established whether you're you've admitted that you've partially excuse me, I've got this flipper in my teeth, and I'm whistling. I apologize. Anybody can see for the record, that's not I'm not trying to be mean. I'm sorry. It causes me to whistle. I apologize. You've admitted on the record you've partially covered without a permit. I'm not sure that you can even get a permit for that. And I have found no evidence to suggest that you are not in violation of the code. So do you have anything further to add?

No. Just ask I just ask him if he has any evidence that the entire roof was

Okay. I

don't see that.

You keep saying records. But you admitted on the record that you did partial. And there is no exception for partial.

I did I did a minor repair with the authorization of village of Fredericton.

Yeah. You didn't have authorization because you did an action that extended beyond what you had told the village what you were doing. So I I said to the village, can can I put a a dollhouse on my yard, and then I build a 500 foot dollhouse? And they say, yes, and then you build a 500 foot dollhouse. Do you think that would allow be allowed? If

I called the village of Wellington, if the roofer that does work here in Wellington for twenty five years, and everybody tell me, no, you don't. And I come myself to the village Of Wellington, and I also inquire about that, and they call somebody from the 2nd Floor and tell me, no, you don't need, I take the village of Wellington?

Again, true and correct statement. Again, if you don't give all the detail and first, let's start with the contractor. You know how many contractors we have that say you don't need a permit and are wrong? I see that all the time. These contractors, they don't wanna get involved with the permit because they're trying to do a quick cheap deal, and they know it takes time and money to get a permit.

And they also know that we can't roll out partial coverings on this route because it's a code violation. So first thing I would do is is I'd go back to your contractor because I'm going to find you in violation. And you're going to tell them why you you should go and fix this. That's number one. Number two, if you go to the village and you don't explain in detail what you're doing, which apparently you didn't, they might give you information that's not accurate. I don't think this is a minor repair. Okay? That's my opinion. And I've been doing this for forty years. I've seen more roofs than you've ever looked at in your life.

I'm sure.

And I also think that you've admitted on the record that you did cover when you're not allowed to do that. He's already testified that that covering would not be permitted. You know what happens? You put the cover on top of the other cover, that moisture that's underneath, that is gonna damage the inside of your roof. And now you're gonna have bigger problems down the line. Okay? That's not the proper way to do it. You have to remove the existing cover, patch it, and then put a new cover. That's the way it's done by code. And you didn't do that. You put a Band Aid on top of the roof to stop a leak. And now you're gonna have future problems because that wood that plywood underneath is likely gonna rot.

I'm not the roofer.

Well, I understand that.

I mean, you

And that's why you need to go back and take my order to that roofing company I did. And say, you ripped me off. Fixed it. I did. Alright. Well, you're gonna take now, you're gonna have an order from me, and you can take that to them. Okay? Anything further?

What the village required for me to to get that done?

Take the

entire things out or the entire

Here's what

I'm gonna require. You're gonna have one month to file for a building permit. They're gonna tell you what's a what they're gonna go out and inspect. And if the repair is correct, you'll they'll sign off on it and you'll be done. If the repair was not done correctly or in violation of the building code, they will tell you what needs to be removed and how to fix it.

So the question that I have, is the entire flat roof or just the area that has been put on top? What exactly do you want me to do? Because I don't want to go in and out the entire roof. Hold on. Thank you.

Through the drone footage, was evaluated in the photos that we have presently. The entire flat roof was recovered.

Okay. So you'll meet they'll come out. They'll show you, and the the village will work with you to get it done. All we want is compliance. All we want is you to avoid a problem. Okay?

I will need an additional time than thirty days.

Well, you know, you the only thing you have to do within the thirty days apply for a permit. Okay? As long as you apply for the permit within thirty days, the clock will you'll have more time to get it fixed. You don't have to get it resolved in thirty days. But if you don't take action in the next thirty days, then you'll be fined.

Fine.

Okay? Alright. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find that respondent is in violation of the warranting code section five dash one one zero five point one. Respondents shall have until 06/18/2026 to apply for a permit to correct the violation. Or a fine not to exceed $50 per day may be imposed. The cost in the amount of $15.21 are hereby assessed, all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order. And a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should respondent fail to comply or contact the village within the time given, a fine certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 07/16/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose fine will be given. Okay. Thank you for coming in. Take that order to that roofing company Because if we find out they're continuing to do this in the village without permits, they'll be

in I agree with you.

You know, it's very costly to sue.

I understand. We know that. I mean,

very, very costly. Yeah. I know. I know. I'll be doing it

and and get it over

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Call the next case.

We're going move to item number four on the new business, N08CC620025.

Stefano Vigas is the court officer.

Case number NOHCCDash6211Dash2025. Respondent name's Karen Band name, Andrew p Schneider. The property address, 10596 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The n o v n o h was served by a certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the n o v n o h be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was 05/04/2026. And it's excuse me. An inspection date on 05/05/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given, and the notice in violation of Wellington code sections 13 dash two dot b dot one, and Wellington Land Development Regulation section seven dot eight dot seven dot b and seven dot eight .1. H. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represented the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence. So entered. A follow-up inspection on May seventh, eleventh, fourteenth, and eighteenth found the violation still exist. A pacer search which found the respondents does have a pending bankruptcy action or a list of pendants filed against the property.

Wait. It does have pending bankruptcy?

Yes. Okay. So to be clear, any order I give will be automatically stayed. Okay? Please proceed. Staff contact with owner representative. Staff have attempted to reach out via phone call. Staff got ahold of Andrew Schneider, but he abruptly hung up when I explained the reason for my call. The co compliance division recommends that respondent be found in violation of vaults and code sections 13 dash two dot b dot one, roof stained and or discolored, wall stained and or discolored, balcony trim stained and or discolored, and land development regulation sections seven dot a excuse me. Sections seven dot a dot seven dot b, dead fronds and palms need to be removed, and seven dot eight dot one dot h, missing mulch in landscaped area.

It is recommended that the rep respondent be given until 06/18/2026 to correct the violations or be charged a fine amount to exceed $25 per day per violation for each day the violations continues to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the code compliance division in the amount of $12.22 be assessed and ordered to be paid within thirty days of the date of this meeting. A cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested. Any 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Walton, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Are they also in foreclosure as well? You said there

was lis pendens as well? I was I found a bankruptcy. I was it's bankruptcy.

All right. Subject to the bankruptcy stay, therefore limiting our ability to enforce this. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find that respondent is in violation of land development regulations section seven point eight point seven point b and seven point eight point one point h. In Wellington code section 13 dash two b one, Respondent shall have until 06/18/2026 to correct the violation or a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation may be imposed. Cost in the amount of $12.22 are hereby assessed, all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order.

And a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also extended. True respondent failed to correct the violations or contact the village within the time given. A Hawaiian certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 07/16/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose filing will be given, all subject to the bankruptcy stay.

Right. Next case. We're going to move

to item number five on the new business, N08CC-three-twenty26. Nicholas Christoffel is the court officer.

Good morning. Code officer Nicholas Christoffel with the village of Wellington presenting case case number NOHDashCCDash3Dash2026. Respondent named Thomas Servsek. Property address, 15701 Cedar Grove Lane, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV NOH was served by certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOV NOH be entered as evidence. So entered. Correction date was 04/27/2026. An inspection on 04/28/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five dot five, expired building permit, BP25Dash0558, new new pool screen enclosure.

Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So all I see is a photo of the front door. There any photos of the access Sorry.

That there is for when I left the door hanger on that day. Okay.

And then We don't need photos for a permit anyway. Okay.

Photo or a follow-up inspection on May 12 and 05/20/2026 found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a lis pendens filed against this property. On 03/05/2026, staff had sent an email to the property owner. On 04/28/2026, I left the door hanger at the property. No response has been received.

The code compliance division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five point five. It is recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026 to correct the violation or be charged with 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 co compliance division in the amount of $12.22 be assessed in order to be paid within thirty days of the date of this meeting. The cease and desist order for a period of five years is requested In the event the co compliance division is not contra 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM 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.

Do we know if any work was actually done?

From from my review with chief building inspector Will Wyatt, There was a final inspection that was disapproved because the property owner needed to verify a pool alarm system was placed. And from there, no further contact was received.

And we haven't heard from the owner since? No. Okay. And there's someone living there, you think? The packages were out front.

Yeah. As far as I could tell from when I went to go leave a door hanger.

Okay. All right. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find that the respondent is in violation of Wellington Code section five-one 105.5. Respondent shall have until 06/18/2026 to correct the violation or find not to exceed $25 per day may be imposed. Cost in the amount of $12.22 are hereby assessed, all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order. A And cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should the respondent fail to contact the village or correct the violation within the time given, the fine certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 07/16/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose fine will be given. Okay.

Next case. We'll move to item domestic.

Did you mean 25 or 50?

Is there a reason you want to do 50?

For that, that was our to my knowledge, that was just kind of the standard fine certification that we would issue on expired building permits. However, if there's any

Has that been a new change? Because we used to be 25.

Building permit always been 50.

Is it because it's a pool permit? Or because it's just any

permit? It's any building permit, dollars 50.

Okay. Dollars 50, and that's fine. That's fine. If that's what the village wants, that's it's up to anyway. Okay.

All right. We'll move to item number six on the new business, NO8cc387twenty26. Ward Putnam is the court officer.

Good morning. Good morning. Ward Putnam, co compliance officer for the village of Wellington. Case number is CCDash387Dash2026. Respondents' names, Ellen Truie, Andre Truie. Property address is 1400 Sailboat Circle, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV and Oh was served by certified mail, return receipt received. A request to service that the NOV and Oh be entered as evidence. So entered.

Correction date was 05/04/2026, and inspection on 05/11/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section seven point eight point seven point b, hedges exceed height ordinance over six feet in height, 13 -2.b.2 I'm sorry. 13 Dash b. Two was corrected. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered. A follow-up inspection on 05/20/2026 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 Pendens filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative on 03/10/2026, a door hanger was left at the property with no response from the property owner.

The co compliance division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section seven point eight point seven point b. It is recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026 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 $13.00 be assessed in order to be paid within thirty days of the date of this meeting. 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM 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.

Okay. So I'm looking at the ordinance. It doesn't mention six feet. It says landscaping hedges shall be trimmed and maintained in a healthy, neat condition and should not encroach into or over public properties, right away, or easements. Is there an issue that they're not being maintained or trimmed?

When there's a hedge associated with the fence, it's supposed to be the height of the fence or six feet.

We have a different ordinance. I think we might have an ordinance issue with that.

Well, that'd be the fence code.

Yeah. I mean, it's obviously they're over six feet, but if we cited them with the wrong ordinance, we have to fix that first. Okay. Okay. So

Let it up me you.

It is in the it is in the fence ordinance. So this is a man this is something to do with unruly hedge hedges. Their hedges are trimmed, it appears. They're just too tall. So what I want you to do is is because they corrected the other violation, I'm gonna dismiss this one. You're gonna recite them under the the fence ordinance. Okay. Send it out, the notice out, and then we'll bring them back if they if they don't correct it. Okay?

Will do.

Alright. So

what the code or

I know what the code says. I knew that it wasn't correct when I saw this, but Okay. So this case is being dismissed.

Yes.

Okay. Call the next case.

We'll move to item number seven on the new business, NO8cc430Threetwenty26. Julia Caldera is

a court officer.

Good morning. Good morning. Julia Coulter, Village of Wellington co compliance officer. Case number CCDash sorry. Case number NOHDashCCDash433Dash2026. Respondent name is I h six, property Florida LP. Property address is 1901 Shower Tree Way, Wellington, Florida. The case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV NOH was served by certified mail. Return receipt received.

I request the service of the NOV NOH be entered as evidence. Correction date was 05/04/2026. An inspection on 05/05/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in notice of violation of Wellington code section 13 dash three 13 dash two dot b dot one, walls stained and or discolored, 13 dash two dot b dot two, Driveway stained and or discolored. Sidewalks stained and or discolored, 13 dash three dot b dot one. Garbage cans not screened from view.

Wellington Land Development Regulation seven dot eight dot seven dot b. Hedges contain 18 inches of visible trunk height. Hedges are dead, diseased, and are dying and needs to be replaced. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violations at the time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

A follow-up inspection on 05/07/2026 found 13Dash2DotBDot two in compliance and the other violations remaining. On May 13, found thirteen dash two dot b dot one in compliance with 13Dash3DotB dot 1 and 7Dot8 dot seven dot b still in violation. On May 18 found the violation still remain. Staff conducted a Pacer search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there's not a list pendants filed against this property.

Staff contact with owner representative. An email was sent on 05/13 to Joanne Rabb at Invitational Homes about the remaining violations. On May 14, an email was received stating that work was completed on May 1, and an email will go out to the tenant about screening the garbage cans. I sent an email stating that the hedges were not replaced and still visible. On May 15, an email was received stating that the maintenance department was notified and a follow-up email will be sent.

On May 18, I asked for a time frame of when the work would be completed and the garbage cans were still visible. I also informed her about the hearing date. No email has been received since. The Code Compliance Division recommends a respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 13 dash two oh, sorry. Wellington Code Compliance Section 13 dash three dot b dot one and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section seven dot eight dot seven dot b.

It is recommended that the respondent be given until 06/18/2026 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 costs incurred by the co compliance division in the amount of $12.22 be assessed and ordered to be paid within thirty 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 07/16/2026 at 9AM 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.

Okay. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find that the respondent is in violation of Wellington Code Section 13 dash three dot b dot one and Wellington Land Development Regulation 7.8.7. B. Respondents shall have until July 1820 excuse me, 06/18/2026, to correct the violation or fine not to exceed $25 per day may be imposed. Costs in the amount of $12.22 are hereby assessed, all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order, and a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should the respondent fail to correct the violation or contact the village within the time given, a fine certification hearing will be held at the village hall on 07/16/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose fines will be given.

Thank you.

$25 per day per violation. Okay.

And we'll move to item number eight on the new business, NOHCC7282026. Ward Putnam is the court officer.

Good morning. Ward Putnam, code compliance officer for the village of Wellington. Case number is CCDash728Dash2026. Respondent's name, Maurice Dice. Property address is 2150 Amesbury Circle, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The INOVINO h was served by posted notice on 04/30/2026 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 interveno h be entered as evidence.

So entered. It looks like you posted as well.

Yeah, I posted. Oh, I forgot to delete that last line. I'm sorry. That's okay. It was posted. Okay. Alright. Is that better? Yeah. Okay. Correction date was 05/05/2026, and inspection on 05/06/2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section six point four point one point eight point one. Storm shutters in place with no storm imminent. 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 May 11 and 05/18/2026 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 Pendens filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative on 03/18/2026. A door hanger was left at the property.

On 03/23/2026, I called the number on file and left a voice mail. No response was given. Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section six point four point one point eight point one. It has recommended that the respondent be given until 05/26/2026 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 the costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.65 be assessed in order to be paid within thirty days of the date of this meeting.

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 06/18/2026 at 9AM at the Wellington Municipal Complex 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It's also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Do you know if anybody's living in the house?

I I believe he rents it

Rents it. To someone. Okay. And the front the shutters aren't up in the front as far as we know. Okay. Just in the back. Okay. I'm gonna give them till the twenty ninth, partly because we have a holiday on Monday, and and we want a five day mailing rule. Okay? That's fine.

Alright. Based on the evidence of testimony presented, I find respondent is in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section six point four point one point eight point one. You submit that shall have until 05/29/2026 to correct the violation or a fine not to exceed $25 per day may be imposed, together with costs in the amount of $13.65, all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order. And a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also entered. Should respond if failed to correct the violation or contact the village within the time given, a fine certification of your hearing will be held at the village hall on 06/18/2026, and no further notice of intent to impose by them

will be given. Thank you. Okay. Call the next, please. We'll move

to item number one, undefined certification, NOHCC4517-twenty25. Julia Colter is the court officer.

What a bastard. This guy is. I already

is the worst. I is the worst. Good morning. Julia Coulter, Village of Wellington co compliance officer. Case number NOHDashCCDash4517Dash2025. Respondent name, Kurt Percy. Property address, 11682 Pippett Court, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was 03/19/2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington code sections 13 dash two dot b dot one, roof stained and or discolored, wall stained and or discolored, mailbox stained and or discolored, 13 dash b dot one, garbage can not screened from view. Garbage cans not screened from view.

Recycling bins not screened from view. Wellington Land Development, regulation section six dot four dot one dot eight dot five dot x. Unapproved fence type, lattice fence, and seven dot eight dot two dot a through g, missing vegetation slash shrubbery plants in front of house on or before 04/16/2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order was the order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on 05/21/2026 if the co compliance division was not as required and or the violations were not corrected. An inspection on 04/20/2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington code section 13 dash two dot b dot one, wall stained and or discolored, mailbox stained and or discolored, and 13 dash two dot b dot two, garbage cans not screened from view, recycling bins not screened from view, Wellington Land Development Regulation section seven dot eight dot two dot a through g, missing vegetation slash shrubbery plant and plants in front of house.

13 dash two dot b dot one, roof stained or discolored, and six dot four dot one dot a dot five dot x, unimproved fence type, lattice fence, was corrected. A follow-up inspection on '13 on April 22 found the violations still exist. On April 27, 13-3.b.1 was in compliance. All other violations remain. On May fifth, seventh, twelfth, and eighteenth, all violations remain.

I thought you said the the fence was corrected.

Yeah. Fence was corrected.

Alright. So not all violations. The remaining

violations.

The remaining violations.

All right. Yes. Okay.

Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of various inspection inspections. I request the photos be entered in as evidence.

So entered.

A Paces search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or the list pendants filed against this property. Contact with the owner representative. A door hanger was left at the property, but no contact has been made.

Okay.

The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of the order Wellington Code section 13 dash two dot b dot one and land development regulation section seven dot eight dot two dot a through g, and that the respondent be assist assessed a fine pursuant to section two dash three eight eight two of the code of ordinance and section one sixty two dot o nine two b of the Florida statute. In determining the amount of the fine, the special magistrate must consider the following factors. One, the gravity of the violation. Two, any 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, it it has a negative impact on the uniformity of the neighborhood. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violations, multiple violations have been corrected, but few still remain. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, no other code case has been opened. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be assessed a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation commencing on 04/17/2026, and in addition to the cost in the amount of $46.7 which does include costs assessed in the order, both continuing to occur until the violations are corrected.

Okay. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find respondent is in violation of the special magistrate's order requiring correction of Wellington code section 13 dash two dot b dot one and Wellington land development regulation section seven point eight point two point a through g on or before 04/16/2026. In evaluating the violations, I find the gravity of the violations to cause harm to the community. It does not apply for uniform landscaping and causes devaluation of property values. I do note that certain actions were taken by the respondent to correct some of the violations, including some that were corrected after April 16, but we will not fine them for those that were slight corrected slightly after April 16.

And I also note that there were no prior violations. A fine in the amount of $25 per day, per violation is hereby imposed commencing 04/17/2026 until the violations are corrected, together will cost in the amount of $46.7 all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order. And a cease and desist order for a period of five years is also extended.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Next case. We're going move to Item No. Two, Undefined Certification, N08CC487025.

Stefano, Villa Glass is the code officer.

Case number NOHCC4872Dash2025. Respondent names Maria Samiento Carlos Enrique Salamiento Muellet. Property address, 11151 Nantucket Bay Court, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date of 05/21/2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington land development regulations four dot sorry.

Development regulate development regulation section six dot four dot one dot a dot six, mechanical equipment not screened from view, the AC unit on or before 04/16/2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on 05/21/2026 if the code compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on 04/22/2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation section six dot four dot one dot a dot six. Mechanical equipment now screen from view. A follow-up inspection on May 2026 found the violation still exist.

Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of various inspections. I request the photos be entered as as evidence.

So entered.

A pacer search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against the property. Contact with the representative, staff has attempted to make contact with the property owner via emails and phone calls that went unanswered. No attempt by the property owner has been made to contact any code staff. The co compliance division recommend they respond to be found in violation of the order Wellington land development regulation section six dot four dot one dot eight dot six, and the respondent be assessed to find pursuant to section two dash three eight eight two of the code of ordinances in sections one six two dot zero nine two b 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, any 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, the violation has a negative impact on the aesthetic and appearance of the neighborhood. As to the actions taken by a violator to correct the violation, no action has been taken.

As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, there are none. Based on these factors, the co compliance division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fund in the amount of $25 per day commencing on April seventeenth twenty twenty sixth and in addition to costs in the amount of $46.70, which does include costs assessed in the order, both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

Was this a neighborhood improvement, or was this a complaint?

I believe this was a neighborhood improvement.

Okay. Alright. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, I find that is in violation of the special magistrates order sorry. You're fine. I know.

Dated 04/16/2026 requiring excuse me. Order dated 03/19/2026 requiring correction of Wellington Land Development Regulation section six point four point one point eight point six on or before 04/16/2026 or a fine not to exceed $25 per day may be imposed. Based on the review and testimony, I find the gravity of the violation is such that it provides a violation of the aesthetics to the community. No action was taken by the property owner to correct the violation, and there is no prior violation on record. Based on the foregoing requirements, a fine in the amount of $25 per day commencing 04/17/2026 is hereby imposed until the violation is corrected together with costs in the amount of $46.70, all due and pay all due and payable within thirty days of the date of this order.

And assistance of this disorder for a period

of five years is also extended. Thank you. We move to item number three, undefined certification, N08cc517025.

Nicholas Christopher as the court officer.

Good morning. Code officer Nicholas Christoffel with the Village of Wines Inn presenting case number NOHDashCCDash5179Dash2025. Respondent name, Beth Congal. Property address, 13579 Stanford Drive, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was 03/19/2026.

The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five dot five. Expired building permits BP22Dash2565 and BP23Dash2950. Install 500 gallon UGLB LP tank line for pool heater, range, and barbecue, and modifications to openings, including structural changes to replace windows, doors, and garage garage door on or before 04/16/2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day for permit BP22Dash256525Dollars per day for permit BP23Dash2950. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on 05/21/2026 if the co compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on 04/17/2026 found the property stone violation of Wellington code section five dash one one zero five point five.