Magistrate Hearing - Special Meeting

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 or 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 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 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 serve in all persons who will testify.

All right, everyone, if you could stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give or may give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Thank you very much, and you may be seated. Okay. Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda?

None.

All right. The consent agenda is approved, and we will now move to new business.

Okay. We have respondents. Item number six on the new business, NOHCC 578-2026. Christopher Prasad is the code officer.

good morning christopher persaud village of wellington co-compliance case number cc seven five seven eight two zero two six responders named george manuel cruz diaz vasconsuelos cruz proper address one two four zero two sawgrass court wellington florida this case was established based on a complaint 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. Correction date was June 22, 2026. An inspection on June 24, 2026 found the following item beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Roaring of chicken on a residential property in violation of a volunteer land development regulation section 6.2.1 use regulation photo and video were taken fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time I Request the photographs and video be entered into evidence so entered I A follow-up inspection on July 7, 2026 found the violations still do exist. Staff conducted a paces search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there is not a list pendants filed against the property. Staff, primarily through Planning and Zoning Department, has been in contact with the property owner throughout this case. The property owner submitted a reasonable accommodation request to keep the chicken as emotional support animals. The request was approved on March 25, 2026, permitting the property owner to keep a maximum of two chickens. their approval prohibit keeping roosters ducks or any other file follow-up inspections conducted by the village canal bank easement on march 31st and april 1st revealed that the property remained in violation due to the presence of more than two chickens on april 1st mrs cruz filed an appeal with the village requesting permission to keep all of her chickens The appeal was reviewed and denied by the village manager on April 29, 2026. A re-inspection conducted on June 2, 2026 confirmed that the property continued to be in violation due to the presence of more than two chickens. As a result, the case was scheduled for a special magistrate hearing. The notice of hearing was sent to the property owner via certified mail on June 4, given a compliance deadline of June 22, 2026. The certified mail receipt was signed by Mrs. Cruz on June 11th, 2026. Follow-up inspections conducted on June 24th and July 7th, 2026 determined the property remained in violation. During these inspections, I observed the property and continue to contain more than two chickens. I also document through video recordings the corn originating from the property. There are approved reasonable accommodation permits, no more than two chickens, and prohibits the keeping of roosters, ducks, and any other fowl. As of today, the property remains in violation and has not been brought into compliance. Code Compliance Division recommend the respondents be found in violation of well-intended land development regulations section 6.2.1. It is recommended the respondent be given until July 24th to correct the violation and or be charged a fine not to exceed $100 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division and the amount of $12.22 be assessed in order to pay within 30 days 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 a fine certification hearing be held before the Special Magistrate on August 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington versus Jorge Manuel Cruz and Thais Vas Consuelo Cruz, is anyone here on this matter? Okay. If you all could come up and you can go to this podium and if you could sign in.

I have some documents that I would like to show you.

Okay, you can hand them to the officer behind you and then he'll hand them to me.

Yes. Thank you. All right.

Hello. Hello. And are you Ms. Cruz? Yes, I am Ms. Cruz. Okay. And you're the property owner? Thank you. Yes. Okay. So what is it you want to tell me?

Okay. Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Thais Vasconcelos Cruz, and I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I am here to respectfully request a reasonable accommodation that will allow me to keep my emotional support animals as part of my treatment. This case is not about farming. It's not about raising livestock. It's not about operating a business. It's about my health. I have been receiving treatment for depression and generalized anxiety disorder since 2023. Throughout that time, my physician, psychiatrist, licensed therapist, and veterinarian have independently evaluated my condition and all reached all the same conclusion. My chickens and roosters are not simply pets. They are an essential part of my medical treatment and help me to manage my disability. As explained by my doctors, caring for my flock provides daily structure, emotional regulation, reduces my anxiety, improves sleep, decreases depressive symptoms, and allows me to function independently. They also explained that removing these animals would likely cause a significant deterioration in my mental health. I understand that the village has a responsibility to protect the community and necessarily respect that responsibility. That is why I have done everything I can to demonstrate that my animals are responsibly cared for and do not create unhealthy conditions. My veterinarian personally evaluated both my animals and my property. She confirms that my chickens are healthy, well cared for, and kept in a clean and sanitary environment. She found no excessive waste, no unhealth odors, no environmental hazards, and no public health concerns associated with how they are maintained. I also submitted records showing continuous professional pest control services to further demonstrate my commitment to maintaining my property responsibility. I want the hearing to know who I am beyond this case. I'm a realtor with Keller Williams Wellington. Every day I help families relocate to this wonderful community and introduce buyers and investors to everything the village has to offer. I truly love living here, and I take pride in representing the Wellington community. I understand that the village is owning regulations, and I respect them. I'm not asking the hearing to ignore those regulations. I'm respectfully asking for the reasonable accommodation provided under the Fair Housing Act for individuals with disabilities. I ask that my request be evaluated based on my individual circumstances, the recommendations of my medical professionals, and the evidence presented today. My doctors have documented why these emotional support animals are necessary for my disability. My veterinarian has confirmed that they are responsibly cared for and do not present a health or sanitation concern. I respectfully ask that my request be decided based on the medical evidence, the condition of my property, and the specific effects of my case. I understand that this decision affects not only me, but also the integrity of the Wellington's regulation. I appreciate that responsibility, and that's why I have done everything I can to provide objective evidence, not just my own opinion. I have submitted letters from my doctors and independent veterinarian and documentation demonstrating that my animals are responsible care for and that my property is properly maintained. Your Honor, I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for equal opportunity. to continue living safely in my home while following the medical treatment recommended by my doctors. I respectfully ask that you look at my case as an individual, not simply as a case involving chickens, but as a case involving a person with a documented disability who has proved Substantial provided substantial medical evidence, veterinary evidence, and proof of responsible care. I'm simply asking for the opportunity to continue following the treatment that my doctors have determined as medically necessary, while continuing to be responsible homeowner and member of the Wellington community that I have always tried to be. I sincerely hope you find that the evidence supports granting this reasonable accommodation so that I can continue managing my disability while remaining a responsible homeowner and provide a positive member of the Wellington community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you, Your Honor.

All right. Thank you. First, I want to thank you very much for your honesty and your heartfelt comments. One of the questions I have is, based on the evidence that has been submitted, it looks like back on March 25th, Planning and Zoning granted you reasonable accommodations for two chickens. Is that correct? Yes. I have a copy of that if you want to see it. Okay. No, that's fine. So how many chickens do you have today?

I have nine, two roosters and seven hens.

Okay, so you've got two roosters and seven hens. Okay. Again, what's been presented in evidence is that the reasonable accommodation that zoning and planning department provided to you back in March said you were not supposed to have roosters.

Yes. These chickens, they are with me since May. Some I got in May last year, from last year, 2005, and some I got September. They are since they were like chicks. Separating them is the same death, signing their death sentence, you know? Because first, chickens, they don't live alone. If I follow, it's not going only to affect my life, keeping only two chickens, because they are not going to survive. Chickens, they don't live in small groups.

For example, when I got... Let me just ask you a couple other questions. I apologize for interrupting you. When did you get the roosters?

I got one in May, the first one, and the other one in September.

Okay, so you had the roosters before you received the reasonable accommodation from Clodin Zoning?

Yes, yes, I had before.

When you asked for the reasonable accommodation from the zoning department, did you tell them you had roosters?

Yes, I always told the truth. I had everything documented.

And then when you got the reasonable accommodation and it said you can't have roosters, what did you do? It says...

Yes. I explained. I went to the city many times, probably three times. I did the appeal. I submitted the appeal to the city explaining that separating the chickens would affect my treatment as already prescribed by the doctors. But all of the appeals that I did were rejected.

So you've got and sort of my the scope of the hearing today is Not whether or not to grant a reasonable accommodation that is for the zoning department today what is before me is what you have existing on your property when the compliance officer came out there and whether or not that is within the the reasonable accommodation order which you received back in March. So if you have two roosters and seven hens, the order said or the exemption that you were provided by Wellington said you were supposed to have two chickens. Yes. So unfortunately, it's just outside of what I do today to determine whether or not you're entitled to reasonable accommodation. That decision, which you got the first decision back in March, that's the zoning department. So based on testimony, it appears that you then went back to the zoning department. I don't know what you requested, but whatever you requested, they denied. So you are kind of bound. by that original order which said two chickens. I understand based on your testimony that you don't think that is appropriate or something like that, but what I have to look at is I have to look at what is existing and the exemption that you have from the zoning department and the testimony that's been provided.

If my doctors, I already spoke with a lawyer. It is what he said. You have sent enough document to the city. I can go behind this and go directly to the court, which I don't want. And I don't want why, because I live in Wellington and I love Wellington. I help people in this community. When the doctors provide letters explaining about my case and the city just denied and withdraw all the appeal, how should I proceed? When I have contacted the lawyer that says to me, you had all the proofs are here, all the proofs now are with you, the same proofs I sent to the city. The same proof I sent to the manager. So I'm here. I don't want to fight.

I don't want. Well, my recommendation at this point would be you retain your lawyer and have your lawyer work with the zoning department. Perhaps there was some additional information. I don't know. But again, I don't have the jurisdiction to grant you a reasonable accommodation. That is outside the scope of today's hearing. So I just want to make that clear. And then, Mr. Passad, you wanted these violations corrected by June 24th. Is that correct? or did I not hear right?

Yes, July.

I'm a month behind. I need more time. I don't have time. And so I guess my question to you would be, when you say, I need more time, what is it you would want to accomplish in that time?

Because I need to find a place in Wellington to reasonably accommodate them and me, where I can go and I can check them daily. When I have my quiz, I can go there and check for them.

Well, you have, I mean, we are at July 16th. You have a whole week. There's Loxahatchee, you know, I know is a nearby community that has different regulations. I mean, it appears that Based on the evidence in your testimony, you've known since March 25th that you were supposed to have two chickens. No roosters, nothing else.

Okay, how long?

And this has been going on now, we're here July 16th, and you still have those animals which you've known since March you weren't supposed to have.

Okay, I have a question, sorry. How long... I have to go to court.

I have until like 24. You can go anytime you want. OK. That's a decision that you would need to make in consultation with a lawyer. Yes, I will do that after here. He's already aware. OK. Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Posada?

The case was open since February of 2026, so we're going to stick with the July 24th because it's becoming a nuisance to the residents in the surrounding area.

And as I recall, you had mentioned that this came in because of a neighborhood complaint?

Correct.

Okay. All right.

Can I add something? Mm-hmm. Because the same neighborhood, that made the complaint, she made the complaint against my house and against my neighbor's house. If I'm not wrong, the first photo that you showed, you can see his chicken cup outside of that property.

That's correct. Right? He actually came into compliance and got rid of his chickens.

Oh, yes. But what happened, it was dismissed.

No, it was presented last. It was.

I have proof.

It was presented last week.

Well, we're not here on anybody else's case. We're here on your case.

I just would like to point because his case was dismissed. Noted. I had to come to the city and show proofs that he also had chickens. And not only that, but I could check through the photos because I requested access to the city. I bought my property and I bought my neighbor's property. where you just took pictures from the right side of his property and not from the left side.

Ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're not here to talk about any other cases. Again, I appreciate you coming here and sharing your information with me. But with that being said, I need to move on. And 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 respondents. I find that the respondents are present. And I do find that the respondents are in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 6.2.1. I make the following conclusions of law, that the respondent is hereby ordered to correct this violation by July 24th. A fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation is assessed against the respondents, which will begin on July 25th. And costs in the amount of $12.22 are assessed against the respondent. I will also issue a cease and desist order prohibiting future violations for five years. And in the event that you fail to timely correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on August 20th, 2026. I will follow that up with a written order. And again, I thank you very much for coming in today. All right. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number one on the fine certification, NOHCC 627-2025. Helen Archer is the code officer.

Good morning. Helen Archer, code officer for Wellington. Case number is CC627-2026. Respondent's name is Judith Squires. Property address is at 11803 South Rambling Drive, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was September 18, 2025. A stipulation agreement was signed. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of LDR 1.7.2, expired permit ENG 210208 for a sand ring and practice arena on or before November 20th, 2025, or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on December 11th, 2025 if the code compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. Ms. Squires contacted me requesting additional time due to contractor issues and the case was granted three extensions to June 18, 2026. Ms. Squires has hired a contractor and is working with an engineering company at this time, but no further extensions could be given. A PACER search found that the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy or list pendants filed against the property. The Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulations Section 1.7.2 and that the respondent be testifying 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. 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, owner has tried to comply in getting the permit approved. As to any previous violation of the same code section committed by the violator or on the same property, no other violation has occurred. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be assessed to find the amount of $50 per day commencing on June 19, 2026, and in addition, the cost in the amount of $51.25, which includes costs assessed in the order, both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected. I'm sorry, cost in the amount of what? $51.25.

Okay, perfect. Okay. And we are here on the matter of Wellington versus Judith Squires, case number NOH-CC627-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? Yes, I am.

And you are? Judith Squires.

Thank you, Ms. Squires. And did you sign in?

No, but I will. Okay.

But if you want to go ahead and why don't you sign in first? Did you sign in? Sign in first so that we have a record that you're here. All right, Ms. Squires, what is it you want to tell me about this NOV?

I've been having trouble getting movement out of the surveyor to start with, and then Taylor is the contractor that's going to do the manure pad, and he's ready to go, but I have stormwater engineers working on this somehow. They've been in it since the beginning. And now I'm not getting much motion from them as far as the survey is. This has been going on for weeks. The only time it seems they want to talk to me is when they need a check. I'm sort of off in the sidelines and have not much to do with this whole development. I've told them that the village has taken me to court, and we need some momentum here. And it's as if I'm talking to the floor.

All right. Thank you very much for that. I see that there was a stipulation and an agreement that was entered into back on September 18th where you were given until November 20th to obtain the permit. And so I guess I'm struggling a little bit because here we are in July. And it sounds like it's a very frustrating matter for you. However, you have signed an agreement that you said, I'm going to have this done by November. And then you received several extensions, which bring us here today. So, you know, and based upon your testimony, you know, I think we're at a position You need to get the permit. I don't know, you know, that's kind of I'm going to leave that up to you how to do that. But, you know, I think that you've had sufficient time to get the permit and it just hasn't happened. So I don't know that I have, you know, much flexibility to give you more time. than you already have, because you did enter into that stipulation last year, and we still don't have – you still haven't started the process to have your permit renewed or get a new permit.

I don't know what to tell you. I've been working on this for quite a while. I've been trying to keep Helen up to pace with what's going on, too. And we're making progress, but now we're waiting for the surveyors. And it's been weeks.

Magistrate, as I was sitting there, I got a text from the engineering company saying that the surveyor is being scheduled, but They haven't given me a date yet. So I would request, you know, if she can have another month until July, when is the next hearing? If we can wait until July to start finding her, if that's okay, as long as it's up to you.

Or the next hearing is August. August 20th. So do you want me to continue this over to August 20th?

I would like you to stay as, let's see, if she gets to August and we actually see some movement from the engineering company, if we can start fines in August, would that be appropriate?

If that's your pleasure. Yeah, I think so. We can do that.

And I will push them also. I'll get in contact with them also because we've been trying for so long. But now that she has actually hired and paid the contractor, I think we're able to get more momentum now. And just wanted to give her a little bit more time. Is that good? OK. All right.

All right. Thank you. And I appreciate that accommodation. All right. I'm sorry? Okay, so then what I'll do is just we'll continue this hearing. So what we're going to do is because now the code compliance has given you an additional month to get your survey out there and kind of start that process. What we're going to do is I'm not going to make a ruling today on your fine certification. That's going to be moved to September 17th. Okay, so I want to let you know I'm not doing anything today.

Thank you.

All right. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. All right, I have nothing further, and I appreciate your time. So we're just going to, you're going to get a written order, everything that's going to, or a written notice of hearing that's going to memorialize what I just told you. So that will be coming to you, and it's going to set the hearing date for September 17th. Okay.

All right? Yes.

All right. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number two on the new business, NOHCC 4525-2025. Isaiah Como is the code officer.

Go right ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC4525-2025. Respondent name is Jonathan B. Brown. Property address is 13789 Folkstone Circle, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV-NOH was served by posted notice on June 24, 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 NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was July 4th, 2026. An inspection on July 6th, 2026 found the following items remained beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Sections 7.8.7.B, dead palm and landscape, vegetation removal permit required. and 7.8.2.8 through g missing foundation plants and landscape photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time i request the photographs be entered in the evidence so entered a follow-up inspection on july 13th 2026 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 this property staff contact with the owner I have spoken with Jonathan Brown on multiple occasions regarding the violations. During these conversations, I explained the purpose of the required vegetation removal permit, the need to submit a revised replacement landscape plan, and the corrective actions necessary to bring the property into compliance. I also informed Mr. Brown that the vegetation removal permit required resubmission because additional information regarding the replacement landscape plan was needed. Mr. Brown stated that he did not believe additional trees should be required because there are already trees on the property. He was advised by Planning and Zoning that the required number of trees is based on the size of the lot and the applicable landscape requirements. Mr. Brown advised that he wished to appeal the requirement and inquired about the dispute process for the code case. I explained the special magistrate hearing process and advised Mr. Brown he would have the opportunity to appear before the special magistrate to present any questions, concerns, or objections regarding the case and the applicable code requirements. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation sections 7.8.7.B and 7.8.2.A through G. It is recommended that the respondent be given until August 20th, 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 costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.65 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 17, 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. All right, in the matter of Wellington versus Jonathan B. Brown, case number NOH-CC4525-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Are you Mr. Brown? Yes, ma'am. All right, Mr. Brown, if you could sign in. All right. So, Mr. Brown, what do you want to tell me about, let's first start with the missing foundation plants and landscape.

Yes. So, good morning to everyone. Purchased this home November of 2010. Shortly thereafter, this is what we've done to the home. The foundation issue did not come up until I pushed back about replacing the one tree that needed to be removed. The village has been out there when I installed impact windows and doors, when I installed a garage, when I installed a fence. And those things occurred back in 2018, 2019, and there had never been an issue regarding foundational plans. And so... Again, it didn't come up until I pushed back about why do I have to replace. I don't mind removing the tree, but why do I have to replace it? And then the foundational plant issue became an issue.

So however it came up, you've had notice for a couple months now that the missing foundation plants are not there. So you're aware of that. And have you made any efforts to put plants in there?

I have not because because again The enforcement seems to be subjective and subjective. I've had a number of people come out whether it has been to Pressure pressure washer driveway sidewalks and I've been there for almost 16 years and it's never been an issue and so my request would be Some sort of grandfathering in because after 16 years, it's an issue That's weird

All right. Well, different folks have different specialties within what they're doing for the village. So that's just something to be aware of. Now, moving to the dead palm and landscape, I did have a question. Because I'm looking at four different palm trees. Which is the palm tree that is dead and needs to be removed?

It's the palm tree directly in front of the window on the right side of the main entrance to the door. Where you see the red posting in the ground, there's a tree right behind it. Okay. That is the dead tree in question.

Okay. Gotcha. All right. Okay. And so based on the testimony, it appears that your area of dispute is not in removing the tree. It's that in order to, I guess, obtain the permit, you would then have to propose what you're going to put in there. And you don't believe that that's right, that you should have to do that.

Yes, ma'am. And the email I received from code enforcement when I asked how many trees am I supposed to have? And they said, you're 0.25 acres. You need seven. There's currently nine, 10, if you count the dead one. So I don't understand why I would have to replace it if I'm already above the number of trees necessary.

Okay. And so is it the one palm tree that's got three, three branches that you're counting as three?

Yes.

Okay. And when you raised that concern to zoning, what did they, did they reply back to you?

The email I sent was on June 25th. The response I received was like July something. So I haven't gone back and forth. I just wanted to know because I, again, I requested to come before the magistrate because I wanted to just present that as... part of my concerns. I don't mind removing the tree. I had started the permit to remove it, but then the other issues came up, and that's why I wanted to come before you today.

Okay. And did you review the email that you got from the zoning department in response to your original email? Did you read it? And what did they, they apparently don't agree that you have seven plants in there, seven trees.

So can, I mean, we can count them. They're here.

Well, I'm not here to second. I'm not a zoning expert. I'm not a tree expert. So I'm not going to substitute my judgment for what the zoning department is telling you. But my question to you was, when you got the response back from zoning, did you review it?

Yes, ma'am. And I can read it to you.

Sure.

Based on your lot size, .25 acres, your lot requires seven trees, palms, which you are currently below the minimum requirement and missing the hardwood, canopy, shade trees required on site. And so I went out, took pictures, counted.

Well, again, the scope of my hearing today, as I said in the earlier hearing, I'm not here to look at what the violation is. I'm here to look at the evidence that's been presented and determine whether or not the code is being violated. And so in this particular instance, you've received a response from the court. the zoning department indicating that your lot is not in compliance with the number of plants and That's kind of where we're at.

Understood. So who in code enforcement is required to count it because their count was wrong?

That's really where you need to work directly with zoning because they're going to be the ones that are going to, and correct me if I'm wrong, it would be really the zoning department. You need to work with them, say, what can I do? What type of plants? They're going to provide you a lot of that guidance that you need. I can't provide you that guidance because I don't know anything about trees.

Understood. Understood. So I guess my question is, because they have the pictures, we're not allowed to count it right here?

I think that's the appropriate thing is you can take your pictures in and really work with them and they can tell you the basis for what they're seeing.

Understood.

Okay. So is there anything else you want to add to me?

No, those were the two issues. Again, with regards to the number of trees, I think I meet the requirements, so I'm not sure how even the fines apply if I have the correct number of trees. That's already there. And then again, on the foundational issues, it's never been there. Code enforcement has been I've been there since 2010. Code enforcement has come out when they said, you know, you can't have your boat in the driveway. So I added a fence. I added a garage door, all these inspections, and it never came up as an issue.

Right. Well, from a legal standpoint, the defense of, well, you didn't cite me earlier, that is not a legal basis for me not to find that you're in violation of it.

Correct. That's why I say it's selective. Understood. Selective code enforcement.

So based upon the evidence and the testimony, I find that the notice of violation was properly served on you, Mr. Brown. I find that you are here. And I'm gonna enter an order you're gonna have a month in order in to work with The zoning department as well as to correct everything that you can so I'm gonna be entering an order but I want you to understand that you still have a month before fines kick in and a possible lien so I would strongly recommend that you work with zoning to get this issue where you can come to an understanding of what they're looking at and then resolve it in an amicable way. But like I said, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I make the following conclusion. Sure.

Just one question. Um, beginning of August, I'm going to have a medical procedure and I'm not sure how long I'll be recovery. Can I get a little longer than a month? I can reach out to code today. Um, but I don't know how long it'll take to get things resolved.

Okay. That's fine. We can do six days.

Okay. So what we can do is, um, we can move, we would move everything to September 17th. September October 15th, which is me October 15th. Okay. All right, and then one last comment staff is great to work with though They are a great resource and especially because they know What you know what landscaping thrives and all that stuff and is lower, you know lower care and all that stuff. All right okay, so The code compliance has agreed to push this a little bit further to give you a little time. So I'm going to make the finding that you are in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.2.A-G, as well as Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. You are ordered to correct these violations by September 17th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed, and that will begin on September 18th. Cost in the amount of $13.65 is assessed against the respondent. I'm going to issue a cease and desist order for five years. And that in the event that you do not correct these violations, we will have a fine certification hearing back here on October 15th. I am going to send you a written order with all of this information. But I appreciate your time in coming here today and wish you best of health.

Okay, two last questions. Okay. Should I continue to work with, is there someone specific I need to work with or contact?

As far as landscaping, I believe it's whoever's assigned to the case in the planning and zoning department.

Somebody's raising their hand. Damian, you can work with him.

All right, so I can do that. And then if we disagree on the number of trees which are there and can be counted, how does that get handled?

I would recommend then that you reach out to a lawyer and find out what your legal options are. That's all I can tell you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right. Thank you.

Right there.

All righty. We have a few billing staff we need to get out, so I'll go ahead and call those cases. Item number eight on the new business, NO8CC, 11-24-2026. Nicholas Christopher is the code officer.

Good morning. Code Officer Nicholas Christopher with the Village of Wellington presenting case number NOH-CC-1124-2026. Respondent names Christy Lynn Watson and Nicholas Robert Watson. Property address 12628 Pineacre Lane, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV-NOH was served by a certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOV-NOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was June 22nd, 2026. An inspection on June 23rd, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. No building permit for aluminum rail fence BP 25-9041. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the screenshot be entered as evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on July 7th and July 14th found the violation still exists. Staff conducted a PACER search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or those pendants filed against this property. I spoke with Mr. Watson, Ms. Watson, as well as their contractor, James, via email on April 7th and April 8th of 2026 to inform them that a pool barrier would be required prior to the issuance of BP 25-9041. On June 29th, 2026, Mr. Watson spoke to building department staff with the intent to begin the permitting process for a baby gate. No further response was received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. It is recommended that the respondent be given until August 20th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged with 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 $12.22 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. And in the matter of Village of Wellington versus Christy Lynn Watson and Nicholas Robert Watson, NOH-CC-1124-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing that the time is 9.52, I just had a few questions so that I can understand this process. So it's no building permit for the aluminum rail fence. Is the fence already up?

Correct.

Okay. And and so how is it that was it just a neighborhood inspection that you saw the fence be up?

No to my understanding. This was a The fence was already put up then the contractor submitted an application and then while going through plan review process a pool barrier is required and they just haven't Complied with that in order to get approval for the issuance of a permit

Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification. I really appreciate it. All right. Based upon the testimony, evidence, and screenshot in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing was properly served on the respondents. I find that the respondents are not here. I make the following findings or conclusions of law that the respondents are in violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.1. The respondents are ordered to correct this violation by August 20th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on August 21st. Costs in the amount of $12.22 are assessed. A cease and desist order will be issued. And in the event that they do not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on September 17th. And I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 11 on the new business, NOHCC 1390-2026. Nicholas Christopher is the court officer.

Good morning, Code Officer Nicholas Christoffel, Code Compliance Officer of the Village of Wellington, presenting case number NOH-CC-1390-2026, respondent name Regina Romanovska-Samarin, property address 12231 Eureka Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOV-NOH was served by post-it notice on June 25th, 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 July 6, 2026. An inspection on July 7, 2026 found the following item remained beyond the time given in notice in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. Work conducted without the issuance of a permit, BP 26-0326, interior remodel. 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 July 14th, 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 April 27th, 2026, an email was sent to Regina. On May 6th, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. And on July 15th, 2026, Steph spoke to Eric, friend of Regina, who is currently watching over the property. And no further response was received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. It is recommended that the respondent be given until August 20th, 2026 to correct the violations or be charged to find 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 $13.65 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 September 17th, 2026 at 9 a.m. at the Longton Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Longton, Florida. It is also recommended that no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you. And we are here in the matter of Wellington v. Regina Romanoska, Samarian, case number NOH-CC1390-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Showing none and noting the time of 9.57 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 respondent. find that the respondent is not here. I make the following conclusions that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.1 building permit. Respondent is ordered to correct these violations by August 20th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day will be assessed against the respondent, which will begin on August 21st. Costs in the amount of $13.65 are further assessed. A cease and desist order will be issued and that in the event the respondent does not correct this violation, a fine certification hearing will be held on September 17th. I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number two, undefined certification, NOHCC 1250-2025. Nicholas Kristofor is the court officer.

Good morning. Nicholas Christopher, code officer with the Village of Wellington, presenting case number NOH-CC-1250-2025. Respondent named John Traers. Property address 115 St. David's Way, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date was on February 19th, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1-105.1. were conducted without the issuance of permits, residential remodel BP25-0541 and pool barrier BP25-0540 on or before April 16th, 2026 with an extension granted on May 21st, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on July 16th, 2026 if the Code Compliance Division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on June 22nd, 2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. Pool barrier BP25-0540 was issued. However, residential remodel BP25-0541 remained in violation. The follow-up inspection on July 6th and July 13th of 2026 found the violation still exists. Screenshots were taken that represent the condition of the property at that time of the various inspections I request the photos be entered into evidence so entered pacer search found the respondent does not have pending bankruptcy action or those pendants filed against this property and On April 8th, 2025, staff spoke with Mr. Treyers via email. On July 23rd, 2025, staff sent an email regarding the remaining expired permits. On September 5th, 2025, staff sent another email. On September 8th, 2025, Mr. Treyers sent an email to staff who responded on September 9th, 2025. On January 29th, 2026, an additional email was sent to the property owner. On January 30th, 2026, co-compliance and building department staff met with Mr. Traers at the property to discuss the remaining tasks required for both permits. On February 5th, 2026, Mr. Traers notified staff that he would visit Village Hall to sign a stipulation agreement, which was signed on February 6th, 2026. on April 30th, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. I sent an email regarding the status of building permit 25-0540 and building permit 25-0541. Mr. Trey has informed me that he was expecting his architect to finalize the design drawings and would submit those drawings and an application for 25-0541, once they were completed, no further contact was received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.1. and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to Section 2-38 of the Code Ordinances and Section 162.09 of the Florida Statute. In determining the amount of the fine, the Special Magistrate must consider the following factors, the gravity of the violation and any actions taken by the violator to correct the 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, the work conducted for the residential remodel is unpermitted work. As for the action taken by the violator to correct the violation, a permanent application has not been submitted for BP25-0541. As for any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the property, there is no prior record. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $50 per day commencing on June 19, 2026, and in addition to the cost in the amount of $47.48, which does include costs assessed in the order both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay, we are here in the matter of Village of Wellington v. John Trius, and it is NOH-CC 1250-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 10.02. Based upon the evidence, photos, and testimony in this matter, I find that on February 19th, 2026, respondent and the special magistrate entered into a stipulation wherein the respondent agreed to correct the violation at Code Section 5-1-105.1. And that based upon the evidence that this has not been corrected I make the following conclusions of law after reviewing the testimony evidence and photos in this matter and the requirements of Florida law I find that the gravity of the violation is the impact to the neighborhood and the safety of due to unpermitted work. Respondent has not made any efforts to correct this violation, and there is no history of the same violations at the same property. Based upon that, I find that a fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation is further assessed against the respondent, which will begin on June 19, 2026. Further, costs in the amount of $47.48 will be assessed against the respondent, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Oh, okay. So costs are $25? Yes. Oh, the fine. Okay. Sorry. A fine. I determined. Okay. So we will correct that, that based upon the three categories of gravity, efforts, and history, I'm going to determine that a fine in the amount of $25 per day is a fine that will be assessed, which will begin on June 19, 2026. Is that correct? All right. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 6, undefined certification, NOHCC 5904-2025. Nicholas Christopher is the code officer.

Good morning. Nicholas Christopher, code officer with the Village of Wellington, presenting case number NOH-CC-5904-2025. Respondent names Eugenio Ocola and Alexandra Castillo. Property address 655 Lake Wellington Drive, Wellington, Florida. hearing date was March 19th, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Voluntary Code Section 5-1, 105.5, expired building permit BP 23-5351, interior remodel kitchen and baths, on or before April 16th, 2026, with an extension granted on May 21st, 2026, or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on on july 16 2026 if the co-compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected an inspection on june 22nd 2026 found the property still in violation of valentine code section 5-1 105.5 a follow-up inspection on july 6 and july 13 2026 found the violation still exists photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at that time during the various inspections i request the screenshot be entered into evidence so entered A PACER search found the respondent does not have pending bankruptcy action or other spendings filed against this property. On January 21st, 2026, staff left a door hanger at the property. On April 15th, 2026, Mr. Hercola visited Village Hall and spoke with building department staff and requested additional time. On April 16th, 2026, I emailed Mr. Okowa informing him that the extension request was approved and would be signed at the May 21st special magistrate hearing. No further contact has been 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 to find pursuant to Section 2-38A2 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 162.092B 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 property. As to the gravity of the violation, the permitted work for BP 23-5351 has not been resolved. As to the action taken by the violator to correct the violation, BP 23-5351 has not been renewed. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the property, there is no prior record. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $50 per day commencing on June 19, 2026, and in addition to costs in the amount of $48.26, 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 Village of Wellington versus Eugenio Ochoa and Alexandra Castillo, case number NOH-CC5904-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? Okay, noting that the time is 10.08. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that on March 19, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.5. I further find that based upon the evidence and testimony that the violation has not been corrected. After hearing the evidence, testimony, and reviewing the requirements of Florida Statute 162.09, I'm reviewing the gravity of the violation, the negative impact to the neighborhood, the respondents' efforts to correct these violations, which there are no efforts, and that there is no history of violations, of same violations at the same property. I determined that a fine in the amount of $50 per day for this violation is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on June 19th, 2026. Further costs in the amount of $48.26 is assessed against the respondent, 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 eight, undefined certification, NOHCC 3-2026. Nicholas Christopher is the code officer.

Good morning. Nicholas Christopher, code officer with the Village of Wellington, presenting case number NOH-CC-3-2026. Respondent name, Thomas Seversek. Property address, 15013. Cedar Grove Lane, Wellington, Florida. Hearing date, May 21st, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1-105.5, expired building permit BP25-0558, new pool screening closure on or before June 18th. or pay a fine not to exceed $50 per day. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on July 16th, 2026, if the co-compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on June 22nd, 2026 found the property still in violation of Wellington Code Section 5-1, 105.5. A follow-up inspection on July 6 and July 14, 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 screenshot be entered in as evidence. So entered. Pace Research found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or those pendants filed against this property. On March 5th, 2026, staff had sent an email to the property owner. On April 28th, 2026, I left a door hanger at the property. No response has been received. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of the Order of Wellington Code Section 5-1-105.5 and that the respondent be assessed to fine pursuant to Section 2-38A2 of the Code of Code Ordinances and Section 162.092B 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 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, the permitted work for BP 23-0558 has not been resolved. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, BP 23-0558 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 is assessed a fine in the amount of $50 per day commencing on June 19, 2026, 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.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Thomas Stivrek, NOH-CC3-2026, is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 10-12. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of fine certification for today was properly served on the respondent. Further, that the respondent is not here. Also, that on May 21st, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation of Code Section 5-1, 105.5. Further, I find that the respondent has not corrected that violation. After hearing the testimony evidence and the requirements of Wellington Code and Florida statute, I make the following conclusions of law, considering, one, the gravity of the violation. It's a negative impact to the neighborhood, and they have not complied. respondent's efforts to correct these violations, which is none, and the respondent's history of the same violation at the same property, which is none. Based on those factors, I'm going to impose a fine of $50 per day per violation, and the fines will begin on June 19, 2026. Costs in the amount of $46.70 is further assessed against the respondent, and I will issue that or will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you. All right.

We're going to move to item number three on the new business, NOHCC 380-2026. Stefano Vegas is the court officer.

Good morning. I'm Officer Stefano Villegas, co-compliance. Case number NOHCC 380-2026. Respondent name Yen Pham Vo. Property address is 10778 Hidden Bend Way, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on an internal complaint. The NOVNOH was served by posted notice on June 23rd, 2026 at the property, at Village Hall, and at the Village Clerk's Office. A copy of the posted notice was emailed to the property owner. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered in as evidence. So entered. The correction date was June 29, 2026. And an inspection on July 6, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the Notice in Violation of Wellington Code Sections Chapter 21, Article 2, Delinquent Rental Business Tax Receipt for 1077 Hidden Bend Way. Wellington, Florida, BTR number 0043-2022. Photos and screenshots were taken that fairly inaccurately represent the violation at the time. I request that the photographs and screenshots be entered in as evidence. So entered. A follow-up inspection on July 9th, 13th, and 15th, 2026 found the violations do continue to exist. Staff conducted a pacer search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list penance filed against the property. Staff has been in contact with Ms. Yen, the property owner, through phone calls. She has been informed that she needs to pay the invoice for the submitted BTR, and she has come into Village Hall and was resend an invoice by the BTR specialist. I called her to ask her if the invoice was received and or paid. She said she could not find the invoice and told me that she would check when she had a chance. As of today, the invoice remains unpaid and the BTR remains in delinquency. The Code Compliance Division recommends that 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 that costs incurred in the amount of $13.65 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.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Village of Wellington versus Yen Pham Vo, NOH-CC380-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Noting that the time is 1016, 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. I find that the respondent is not here. I make the following conclusions of law, that the respondent is in violation of Chapter 21, Article 2, business tax receipt. Based upon that, I'm going to require that the – or order that the respondent obtain and pay for a local business – the local business tax fee. And also as a penalty, a 25% of that license fee, as well as a $250 penalty. Fine or costs in the amount of $13.65 are further assessed against the respondent. And I will follow that up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number five on the new business, NO8CC498-2026. Stefano Vegas is the court officer.

Stefano Villegas, Village of Voluntary Code Compliance. Case number CC498-2026. Respondent names Pierre R. Kennel, Natalia Y. Stepanitz-Kennel. Property address is 3432 Colonnade Drive, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on an internal 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. The correction date was June 22nd, 2026. An inspection on June 23rd, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice and violation of volunteer code sections. Chapter 21, Article 2, delinquent business tax receipt for PICA Construction Incorporated. SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN THAT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE VIOLATION AT THAT TIME. ARE CRUSHED SCREENSHOTS BE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE? SO ENTERED. A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION ON JULY 6, 2026, 8TH AND 13TH FOUND THE VIOLATIONS DO CONTINUE TO EXIST. STAFF CONDUCTED A PACE RESEARCH WHICH FOUND THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE A PENDING BANKRUPTCY ACTION OR A LIST PENDANCE FILED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. Staff contact with the owner representative. I have attempted to call the property owners, but no answer or return call. And the voice mailbox is unable to accept new messages. The Code Compliance Division recommends that 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 costs incurring the amount of $12.22 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. And I am calling the case of Wellington v. Pierre R. Canole, Natalia E. Stefanetz-Canole, case number NOH-CC498-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1020. I did have a question. For the PICA Construction, Inc., did you review Sunbiz to make sure that is still an active corporation?

It is currently active, yes.

Okay. So you are reading something. Can you just tell me what you're reading and give me the date of that printout, please?

Gotcha. So I'm reading the Sunbiz detail of the business printed out this morning and the status of the businesses that is currently active.

Okay. And is their principal address the 3432 Colonnade Drive, Wellington, Florida?

Yes, ma'am.

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 and that the respondent is not present. Further, I find that the respondents are in violation of Chapter 21, Article 2, business tax receipt. and that I hereby order the respondents to obtain and pay their local business tax fee. A further penalty of $250 plus 25% of the license fee shall also be paid. Costs in the amount of $12.22 are further assessed against the respondent, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you.

I'm going to move to the top of the agenda on item number one on a new business, NOHCC 2664-2025. Isaiah Kamu is the code officer.

Good morning. Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC2664-2025. Respondent name is SFR2012-1, Florida LLC. Property address is 1878 Wisteria Street, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOVNOH was served by a certified mail return receipt received. I request the service of the NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

The correction date was March 1st, 2026. An inspection on March 3rd, 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 corrected, sidewalk stained and or discolored corrected. While Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B, dead palm and landscape, vegetation removal permit required is still in violation. This case has received two continuances to allow additional time for compliance. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection, follow-up inspections conducted on May 5th, May 14th, June 3rd, June 10th, July 1st, July 8th, and July 15th, 2026, found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a PACER search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner. Staff made multiple attempts to establish contact with the homeowner slash representative regarding the replacement of the dead palm tree within the landscape. Staff was able to speak with Todd, the respondent's representative, who advised that he was awaiting a response from the planning and zoning department regarding the replacement plan. On June 16, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Department sent an email to Brian advising that additional information was required before the application could proceed. Specifically, additional information was required for the replacement plan, including an amended plan identifying what plant material was needed. As of the date of this hearing, staff is not aware of any response or resubmittal. and their replacement plan remains in a failed resubmittal required status. On July 1st, 2026, staff also left a door hanger at the property requesting that a representative of the home contact code compliance. No response was received, therefore the violation remains. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Arlington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. It is recommended that the respondent be given until August 20th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $50 per day for each date a violation continues to exist. It is also recommended that costs incurred by the Code Compliance Division in the amount of $13.78 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 17, 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. All right. In the matter of Wellington versus SFR 2012-1, Florida, LLC, NOH-CC2664-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right. Seeing none and noting the time of 1025. I did have one question. And on the photos that are in evidence, if you could show me the dead, I guess it's the dead palm in landscape.

So right here, you should be able to see it in this photo. It's right behind the home. Oh. You can see it right there.

Yeah, I do. Thank you very much. I 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 and that the respondents are not present. And I make the following conclusions of law, that the respondents are in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B. Further, that the respondent is ordered to correct these violations by August 20th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $50 per day is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on August 21st. And costs in the amount of $13.78 are further assessed against the respondent A cease and desist order will be issued and that in the event the respondent fails to correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on September 17th, 2026. Thank you. And I'll follow that up with a written order.

Thank you.

We're going to move to item number four on the new business, NOHCC444-2026. Staff is requesting a continuance to the August 20th, 2026 hearing. Granted. We're going to move to item number seven on the new business, NOHCC 723-2026. Christopher Prasad is the court officer.

morning christopher prasad co-compliance officer for the village of wellington case number cc7232026 respondent's name is bonnie p meisner trustee bonnie p mine meisner The vocal trust property address 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, Lacewood Lane, Walton, Florida. This case was established based on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The end of the end of which was served by certified mail return receipt received. Request the service of the NOV and OHP engine and as evidence so entered Correction date was June 22nd 2026 an inspection on June 25th 2026 Found the following item beyond the time given in the notice of violation Mechanical equipment not completely screened from view in violation of Wellington land development regulation section six dot four dot one dot eight dot six mechanical equipment and 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 June 30th and July 8th found the violations do exist. Staff conducted a patient search, which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action. Research found there's not a list of pendants filed against the property. Staff has been in contact with the property owner David Paley. I reviewed the violations of the property with them is to pretty stated that he's currently working on addressing the items in the notice of violation. A follow-up was conducted with Mr. Paley on June 30th regarding the status of the required vegetation planted around the AC unit. Since that time, no update has been given, and the violation still remains unresolved. Co-Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.6. It is recommended to respond and be given until August 20th, 2026 to correct the violation or be charged a fine not to exceed $25 per day, each day the violation continues to exist. It is also recommended the costs incurred by the Co-Compliance Division and the amount of $12.22 be assessed and ordered to be paid within 30 days 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 and or the violation is not corrected, it is recommended a fine certification hearing be held before a special magistrate on September 17th at 9 a.m. at the 1 Wellington Municipal Complex, 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. It is also recommended no additional notification of the intent to impose fine be given.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Bonnie P. Meisner Trustee and Bonnie P. Meisner Revocable Trust, case number NOH-CC723-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, noting that the time is 10.31, based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of hearing and notice of violation was properly served on the respondent and that the respondent is not here. I make the following conclusions of law, that the respondent is in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.6. Respondent is ordered to correct this violation by August 20th, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on August 21st, 2026. Costs in the amount of $12.22 are further assessed. A cease and desist order will be issued. and that in the event that the respondent does not correct this violation, a fine certification hearing will be held back here on September 17, 2026. I will follow this up with a written order to the respondent. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 9 on the new business, NOHCC 1250-2026. Staff entered into a stipulation agreement with a correction date of August 20, 2026. If not, corrected a fine certification hearing on September 17, 2026 and fines not to exceed $50 per day.

All right. Thank you.

I'm going to move to item number 10, NO8CC, 1251, 2026. Staff also entered into a stipulation agreement with a correction date of September 17, 2026. If not corrected, a fine certification hearing on October 15, 2026. Fines not to exceed $25 per day per violation.

All right. Thank you.

Move to item number 12, NO8CC-1497-2026. Staff also entered into a stipulation agreement with a correction date of August 20, 2026. If not corrected, find certification hearing on September 17, 2026. Find not to exceed $25 per day per violation.

Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 13, NO8CC-1536-2026. Isaiah 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. This case was established on a neighborhood improvement inspection. The NOV-NOH was served by posted notice on June 24th, 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 July 4th, 2026. An inspection on July 7th, 2026 found the following items remain beyond the time given in the notice of violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-3.B.1, garbage container not completely screened from view, and 22-9.C, commercial vehicles parked in driveway and not completely screened from view. Photos were taken that fairly and accurately represent the violation at that time. I request the photographs be entered in the evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on July 8th, July 14th, and July 15th, 2026 found the violations still exist. Staff conducted a PACER search which found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or a list pendants filed against this property. staff contact with the owner slash representative. I have only been able to speak to Daniel on two separate occasions regarding the violations. During these conversations, I explain the violations, the applicable code requirements, and the corrective actions needed to achieve compliance. Although Daniel has acknowledged the violations, they remain uncorrected. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-3.B.1 and 22-9.C. It is recommended that the respondent be given until July 22, 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 $13.65 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 August 20th, 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 on post-fine be given.

Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Daniel Rosario, case number NOH-CC1536-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, and noting the time of 10.36, 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 evidence, testimony, and photos, I find further that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 13-3.B.1 and Code Section 22-9.C. I further find that the respondent is ordered to correct these violations by July 22nd. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is further assessed against the respondent, which will begin on July 23rd. Costs in the amount of $13.65 are assessed against the respondent. A cease and desist order is entered, and that in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held back here. on August 20th, 2026. I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to move to item number 14 on the new business, NOHCC 1581-2026. Ward Putnam is the court officer.

Good morning. Good morning. Ward Putnell, Code Compliance Officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is CC-1581-2026. Respondent's name, Richard Weisner. Property address is 2221 Amesbury Court, Wellington, Florida. This case was established based on a complaint. The NOVNOH was served by posted notice on June 25th, 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 NOVNOH be entered as evidence.

So entered.

Correction date was July 5th, 2026. An inspection on July 8th, 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. Loose tiles on roof, 13-2.b.2. Driveways stained and or discolored. Sidewalks stained and or discolored. And 13-3.b.1. Recycle bins not screened from view. And land development regulation sections, 7.8.7.b. Landscaping not being maintained in a neat, healthy, and orderly appearance. Grass overgrown and needs to be mown. Hedges exceed height ordinance over six feet in height. Weeds in landscaped areas. dead fronds and palm trees. Photos were taken that fairly inaccurately represent the violations at that time. I request the photographs be entered into evidence.

So entered.

A follow-up inspection on July 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 Liz Pendence filed against this property. Staff contact with the owner representative. On May 13, 2026, a door hanger was left at the property. No response was given. On June 25, the neighbor called and explained that the property owner has deceased. The Code Compliance Division recommends a respondent be found in violation of Wellington Code Sections 13-2.b.1, 13-2.b.2, 13-3.b.1, and Land Development Regulations Section 7.8.7.b. It is recommended that the respondent be given until August 20th, 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 $13.65 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 17, 2026, Excuse me. 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. All right. In the matter of Wellington v. Richard Weisner, case number NOH-CC-1581-2026. Is anyone here on this matter? Okay, seeing none and noting the time of 1041. I just had one question, just so our record is clear, for the violation with the recycle bin. Can you show me that photograph or where I can see it?

There you go.

Okay. Wonderful. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

I did speak to Public Works, and they were going by to remove the recycle bin since the property owner is deceased. Gotcha. So that will come into compliance.

Okay. Okay. All right. So based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that the notice of violation in hearing for today was properly served. I find that the respondent is not here. Based upon the foregoing, I make the following conclusions of law that the respondent is in violation of Code Section 13-3.B.1, Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B, Code Section 13-2.B.1, and Code Section 13-2.B.2. The respondent is ordered to correct these violations by August 20, 2026. A fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation will be assessed against the respondent, which will begin on August 21. Costs in the amount of $13.65 are further assessed. A cease and desist order will be entered. And in the event the respondent does not correct these violations, a fine certification hearing will be held on September 17, 2026. And I will follow that up with a written order to the respondent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to move to item number three on the fine certification, NOHCC 521A-2025. Sinead Duffy is the code officer.

Sinead Duffy, Village of Wellington, co-compliance officer. Case number NOHCC 5218-2025. Respondent names, Lorna F. Brown, trustee, Godfrey B. Brown, trustee, Godfrey B. and Lorna F. Brown, trustee, Brown revocable trust, sorry. Property address 13467 Exotica Lane, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was May 21st, 2026. The respondent agreed through a stipulation agreement to correct the violation of Wellington Land Development Regulation Sections 6.4.1.A.5.B.B and 6.4.1.A.5.H. Honoured before June 18th, 2026. or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on July 16, 2026, if the co-compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violations were not corrected. An inspection on June 24th, 2026 found both violations still remained. Follow-up inspections on July 1st, 7th and 14th, 2026 found full compliance of Wellington Land Development Regulations section 6.4.1.a.5.bb fence stained and or discoloured. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspections. I request the photos be entered as evidence. So entered. A PACER search found that the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendents filed against this property. We have had contact with the owner, Ms. Brown. The most recent was on July 1st. I called and left a voicemail regarding the last remaining issue. We spoke on July 7th and I advised Ms. Brown to contact management if more time is needed for the last remaining issue. No further contact was made. The co-compliance division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the order. Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 604.1.A.5.H, Hedge Missing from Front of Fence, and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to Section 2-38A.2 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 162-092B 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, hedges are required in front of fences throughout the village. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, she did just complete installing a new fence in the area. but the hedge violation remains. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, none. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed to find in the amount of $25 per day, commencing on June 19, 2026, 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.

Thank you very much. All right. In the matter of Village of Wellington versus Lorna Brown, trustee, Godfrey B. Brown, trustee, and the Godfrey B. and Lorna F. Brown revocable trust, which is case number NOH-CC-5281-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? Seeing none and noting the time of 1046. Based upon the evidence, testimony, and photos in this matter, I find that on May 21st, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations. I further find that the notice of violation and fine certification hearing for today was properly served on the respondent. I do find that based upon the evidence that there has been partial compliance, however, the respondent is still in violation of Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.H. Is that correct, Ms. Duffy?

Yes.

I just want to make sure I get it right. All right. Okay. And based upon that finding, And after hearing the testimony and evidence in this matter and considering Wellington Code and Florida Statute 162.09 in reviewing the determination of a fine, I'm looking at the gravity of the violation, which is a negative impact to the neighborhood. The respondent has made partial efforts to correct the violations that were in existence. And also that there is no history of the same violation at the same address. Based upon the foregoing, I determine a fine in the amount of $25 per day is assessed against the respondent, which began on June 19, 2026. Costs in the amount of $46.70 are further assessed against the respondent, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondent.

I'm going to move to item number four, undefined certification, NOHCC 5281-2025. Sinead Duffy is the code officer.

Sinead Duffy, Village of Wellington, Code Compliance Officer. Case number NOHCC 5281-2025. Respondent names Jason Portnoy and Judith Portnoy. Property address 13799 Columbine Avenue, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was March 19th, 2026. The respondent agreed through a stipulation agreement to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.3 on or before April 16, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day. The Order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on May 21, 2026 if the Code Compliance Division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on April 21, 2026 found the property still in violation. On May 21, 2026, the Special Magistrate granted an extension until June 18, 2026. Inspections on June 24, July 7, and 14, 2026 found the property in violation of Wellington Code section 13-2.b.3. Sidewalk and apron have been painted, coated or sealed. Photos were taken that represent the condition of the property at the time of the various inspections. I request the photos be entered as evidence. So entered. A pace of search found that the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or lis pendens filed against this property. We have had contact with Mr. Portnoy since the case began through emails and phone conversations at the property and at the village hall. We last spoke on July 10th. I called to remind him that the case has been heard today and we discussed the issues and methods of paint removal that other residents had success with. He stated that he has tried pressure washing and does not want to use chemicals and he is finding trouble finding someone to come out to remove the paint. The Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the Order Wellington Code Section 13-2.b.3 and that the respondent be assessed to 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, painting the sidewalk or apron is prohibited. Mr. Portnoy signed a stipulation agreement and agreed to correct the issue. As to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, Mr. Portnoy stated that he did attempt to remove the paint through pressure washing, but the issue remains. 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 Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed fine in the amount of $25 per day commencing on June 19, 2026. and in addition to costs in the amount of $47.48, which does include costs assessed in the order, both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

All right. Thank you very much. In the matter of Wellington v. Jason Portnoy and Judith Portnoy, which is case number NOH-CC5821-2025, is anyone here on this matter? seeing none and noting the time of 1052. Based upon the testimony, evidence and photos in this matter, I find that the fine certification hearing notice for today was properly served on the respondent and that the respondent is not here. I further find that on March 19, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondents to correct Code Section 13-2.B.3. Further, that the evidence presented shows that the respondent has not corrected these violations. After hearing the testimony evidence and the requirements of Wellington Code, as well as Florida statutes, and reviewing the factors to determine an appropriate penalty, I'm looking at the gravity of the violation. It's a negative impact to the neighborhood and creates a safety concern for the village. Respondents' efforts to correct these violations, there really has been no effort. and the respondent's history of violation. There are no similar or same violations at the same property. Based upon that information and evidence, I find that a fine in the amount of $25 per day is assessed against the respondents, which will begin on June 19, 2026. Costs in the amount of $47.48 is further assessed against the respondent, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondents. Thank you.

We're going to move to item number five on the fine certification, NOHCC 53242025. Isaiah Como is the code officer.

Good morning. Isaiah Comeau, co-compliance officer for the Village of Wellington. Case number is NOHCC5324-2025. Respondent name is Nicola A. Simpson. The property address is 13714 Stainford Drive, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was May 21, 2026. The respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Wellington Code Section 13-3.B.1 Garbage can not screen from view. Recycling bin not screen from view. wellington land development regulations section 6.4.1.8.5.bb fence stained and or discolored fences leaning on or before june 18th 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed 25 dollars per day per violation the order also scheduled a fine certification hearing on july 16th 2026 if the co-compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected An inspection on June 22, 2026, found the property still in violation of Wellington Code Section 13-3.B.1 and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.BB. A follow-up inspection on July 1, July 6, July 7, and July 14, found the violation still exist. 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.

A 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 have been in constant communication with the homeowner, Nicola, since April 15th, 2026. Throughout these communications, Nicola was advised of the remaining code violations and the actions required to achieve compliance. On April 25th, excuse me, on April 15th, 2026, Nicola was granted a 30-day extension to address the remaining violations. On July 1st, 2026, Nicola advised that she had left for the season and would not return until November. She stated that she would contact someone to relocate the garbage container and that the fence would be replaced in its entirety. However, she did not provide a timeframe for the fence replacement. Nicola also requested an additional 30-day extension. However, because no fence permit application had been submitted, there was no basis to support an additional extension. On July 8, 2026, the building department conducted an inspection of the property and observed that the fence was leaning. As of my most recent inspection, the garbage container remains unscreened from view and the fence violations remain uncorrected. The Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent be found in violation of the order, Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1, and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.BB, and that the respondent be assessed a fine pursuant to Section 2-38A.2 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 162.092B 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 violations have a negative impact on the appearance of the neighborhood and are visible from the public right of way. The fence remains in disrepair and the garbage container continues to be on screen from view. as to the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. The respondent has communicated with the Code Compliance Division and was granted a 30-day extension to correct the violations. Although the respondent indicated the fence would be replaced and the garbage container would be relocated, the violations remain uncorrected. Additionally, no fence permit application has been submitted, preventing further consideration of an extension. As to any previous violations of the same code section committed by the violator on the same property, the respondent was previously found in violation of the same code sections in 2020 for a stained and discolored fence and for garbage containers not being screened from view. Based on these factors, the Code Compliance Division recommends the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation commencing on June 19, 2026, and in addition to costs in the amount of $48.13, which does include costs assessed in the order both continuing to accrue until the violation is corrected.

Thank you very much. All right, in the matter of Wellington v. Nicola A. Simpson, NOH-CC5324-2025, is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 1058. 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. Further, that the respondent is not here. In addition, on March 19, 2026, the Special Magistrate entered an order requiring the respondent to comply with Wellington Code Section 13-3.B.1 and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 6.4.1.A.5.BB. Further, based upon the evidence and testimony in this matter, I find that the respondent has not corrected these violations. When considering the fine in this matter I am looking at the gravity of the violation that it's a negative impact to the neighborhood further that the respondents efforts to correct these violations there have been no efforts and That the respondent back in 2020 did have prior violations of the same code sections at the same property so when considering the requirements of Section 162.09 Florida Statutes and the Wellington Code, I determine that a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent to begin on June 19, 2026. Further costs in the amount of $47.48 are assessed against the respondent, and I will follow that up with a written order to the respondent.

Thank you. We're going to move to item number 7, undefined certification, NOHCC 6211-2025. Stefano Vegas is the code officer.

Stefano Villegas, Village of Guantanamo Compliance Officer. Case number NOHCC-6211-2025. Respondent name Karen Menname and Andrew P. Schneider. Property address is 10596 Versailles Boulevard, Wellington, Florida. The hearing date was May 21, 2026. Respondent was ordered to correct the violation of Voluntary Code Sections 13-2.B.1, Roof Stained and or Discolored, Wall Stained and or Discolored, Balcony Trim Stained and or Discolored, and Wellington Land Development Regulations Sections 7.8.7.B. Dead fronds and palms need to be removed. and 7.8.1.H missing mulch in the landscaped area on or before June 18th, 2026 or pay a fine not to exceed $25 per day per violation. The order was scheduled to find certification hearing on July 16th, 2026 if the code compliance division was not contacted as required and or the violation was not corrected. An inspection on June 22, 2026 found the property still in violation of Voluntary Land Development Regulations Section 7.8.7.B and 7.8.1.H and Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1. A follow-up inspection on June 25, July 6, July 9, 13, and 15, 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 as evidence.

So entered.

A PACER search found the respondent does not have a pending bankruptcy action or list pendants filed against this property. Phone calls and door hangers have been left to attempt to make contact, but no attempt to communicate has been made by the property owners. Co-compliance division recommends that the respondent be found in violation of the Order of Wellington Land Development Regulations Sections 7.8.7.B and 7.8.1.H. and well into Code Section 13-2.B.1, that the respondent be assessed to find pursuant to Section 2-3882 of the Code of Ordinances in Section 162.092B of the Florida Statutes. Determining the amount of the final special match day must consider the following factors one the gravity of the violation to any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and three any previous violations of the same code section committed by a violator of the property and As to the gravity of the violation, the lack of property and landscape maintenance creates an unsightly appearance that negatively impacts the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. As to any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, there are none. 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 Code Compliance Division recommends that the respondent is assessed a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation commencing on June 18, 2026, 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.

All right. Thank you. Okay. In the matter of Wellington versus Karen Ben Naim, Andrew P. Schneider, NOH-CC6211-2025. Is anyone here on this matter? All right, seeing none and noting the time of 11.04, based upon the evidence 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 respondents are not here. Further, I see that on May 21st, 2026, the special magistrate entered an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations stated in Wellington Code Section 13-2.B.1 Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.7.B and Wellington Land Development Regulation Section 7.8.1.H. Based upon the evidence, testimony and photos in this matter, I find that these violations have not been corrected. And after hearing the evidence, testimony and photos and reviewing the requirements of Wellington Code and Florida Statute 162.09, I'm reviewing the gravity of the violations, which is a negative impact to the 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 property. Based upon those factors, I determine that a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation is assessed against the respondent, which will begin on June 18th, 2026. Costs in the amount of $46.70 is assessed against the respondents, and I'll follow that up with a written order to the respondents. June 19th? Okay. I correct that, and it will be corrected in the order.

That brings us to the end of the agenda.

All right. All right. Thank you, everyone here. And this meeting is adjourned at 11.06.