ready to begin? Yes, ma'am. Everything recording and everything on? Yes, sir. All right. Good morning. I'm going to call to order the uh code enforcement hearing for the town of Lockachi Groves. It's July 7th. It's 9:08. My name is Amity Barnard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing.
First thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to testify, including town staff. So, if you're here for a code enforcement case, uh, if you could stand, if you're able and raise your right hands, I'm going to swear you all in at the same time. Are you here for a code case, sir? Stand up and raise your right hand for me. Is there anybody on the computer?
No, ma'am. Not at this time. Okay. Do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. You may be seated. A little bit about process. It looks like all of the cases on the agenda this morning are violation hearings. Uh except for one fine assessment hearing. The process is
the same. When you hear your case called, come to the podium here to my right. The town will go first. They will present any evidence that they want me to see. They will uh call any witnesses that they want to call. They'll present their entire case. Once they're finished, you'll then pre present any evidence, any testimony you have to me.
You'll be able to cross-examine any witnesses that the town puts on. And at the end of that, I'll make a final ruling and you'll get a copy of that ruling in the mail. So with that, I'll turn it to the town to call it first case. And madam magistrate, just for the record, present today from staff is a director of community standards, Miss
Karen Gardner Young, town clerk assistant Sammy Brown, code enforcement officer Deanna Thomas and public works superintendent Mr. Craig Lowour. At this time, the first case on the agenda for violation hearing new business is Jose
and Raymon Valia and the address is 2241 A Road, Locks Hatcher Grove, Florida 3347 33470. The case number is 25504001. The violation sections include 30-6
keeping a fill on property and 20-017 prohibited uses. let her know that um the applicant is here. She wants to Okay. Um for the for the record, special magistrate, um the the applicant is
here. The respondent is here for 1470 A Road. Um and the case number that he was given that he gave. Yes. 2241 A Road. She said this. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. Which one is it?
We're doing the 2241, right? Okay, that's what I have here. I don't um special magistrate, the um an individual is here today. The owner could not make it. I'm not sure what his request is going to be. I didn't know if
you want us to present the case first or hear from him first. No, here you all need to present first. Okay. Good morning, Special Magistrate Deanna. Officer Deanna Thomas representing case number 2550400001
in reference to the property at 2241A road. A copy of the notice of violation and notice of hearing was mailed certified on June 26, 2025 to the property owner on the Palm Beach County property appraiser. A copy a copy of the notice
of violation and notice of hearing was posted on the property on June 26. The same copy was posted at town hall on June 26. The property was posted with a stop work order and initially cited on
April 1st, 2025 for the following violations. Section 30-6 nuisance keeping of fill on the property. Section 20-017, prohibited use, pay transfer business,
and other operations. Beginning on April 9th, 2025, the code office has had numerous conversations via email and phone with the property owner's attorney, Robert Sailor. He was informed of the violation and ways to
comply. The case was originally scheduled for special magistrate on May 21st, 2025. The property owner, Jose Valerino, came in and we discussed the case with him and he came to an agreement with us to
remove it from the agenda. And our agreement was the business to cease, storage of all the trucks to be removed and an FDA application submitted. We would work with him and not hear the
case on the 7725 special magistrate hearing. However, the violations remain. The town is requesting from the date of this hearing 30 days to submit a full and complete application,
30 days from the complete application, 60 days for the FDA approval for a total of 90 days, 30 days to remove all businesses and equipment and fill from the parcel.
The town is requesting $150 per day per violation thereafter. The town is also requesting administration costs of 23405 to be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of Lockxahhatche. So, your notice of violation is from
June 26th and you gave the respondent 30 days to comply. Those 30 days have not passed. So, I'm not sure that this is ripe for hearing today. The original violation notice of hearing and notice of violation as indicated in
the file was dated 4125. That's the for the for the hearing he had come in and we agreed to move it to this hearing. He was supposed to comply and if he did not comply by the verbal agreement that we had to remove all the
trucks and everything. So then we noticed him on 626. I know the trouble is that when you noticed him again, you gave him 30 more days to comply. So I can't find him in violation today because the 30 days has not regardless of what I hear. Not that I'm going to find him in violation, but you you've
given him 30 days, so I can't make a finding because we're not 30 days past the time that you specified in the notice of violation. What questions? What happened on June 26th? That's the reciting, correct?
Because we had to get it out 10 days prior. Okay. So, that's the reciting and it still said 30 days, but this was 30 days from the original. But that's what the notice says. So, she's correct. So, I think this one needs to be pulled and you can you'll need to renotice it however you
want to do it, but I I can't make a finding based on what's in the notice of violation. Thank you. At this time, item one is being pulled for renoticing. And is it are you who's here for that one? I think you were outside but um I don't think you were sworn but it
doesn't matter at this point. So can you explain do you understand that sir? Okay. Okay. You can go to the next one. Thank you everybody. Madam magistrate at this time we'll move on to item number two on violation here which is Javier and Rosa
Garcia. The property address is 1 1470 A Road Lock Hatcher Groves, Florida 33470. The case number is 25504004. The violation sections include 30-43 prohibited dumping of manure and horse
bedding. Uh section 30-44 permit required manure and horse bedding. Section number 20-015, manure processing prohibited. Good morning, Special Magistrate. Code
Officer Deanna Thomas, presenting case 254004 or 1470A Road. Copy of the notice of status fine assessment hearing along with the order finding violation was mailed certified.
on June 26, 2025 to the property on the Palm Beach to the property owner on the Palm Beach property appraisers record. A copy of the notice of status fine assessment hearing along with the order finding violation was posted on the property
on June 26, 2025 and the same day at town hall. The property was initially cited on April 1st, 2025 for the following violations. Section 30-43, prohibited dumping of manure and horse
bedding. Section 30-44, permit required, manure and horse bedding. Section 20-015, manure processing prohibited. The case was heard by the special magistrate on June 2nd, 2025, where the magistrate found
for the town. No contact has been made with the property owner. The town has received an email and a certified mail from the property owner's attorney. The letters state that they do not believe they are in violation and is requesting that the town uh cease and desist from
any more code enforcement action. The letters are in the case folder for your review. As of July 2nd, 2025, the violations still exist. There are piles of manure throughout the property. Um Craig Lowour can also testify to
this. The town is requesting a daily fine to be imposed of $250 starting on July 3rd, 2025. The town is also requesting administration costs of 23405 to be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of Lapsa Hatche Groves
and how do you have service? Um there is a representative here today for the property owner and we do have um the green card signed for the orders and fine assessment hearing on the left side of the folder.
Okay. Are you posted as well? Yes, ma'am. Do you want to get that testimony on the record? Um, yes. I thought I had said it. Um, on June I'm sorry if I missed it. That's okay. Um, a copy of the notice of status fine assessment hearing along
with the order finding violation was posted on the property on June 26, 2025. And a copy of the same was posted at town hall on June 26, 2025. Okay. What's the status of the permit?
Has there been applied a permit applied for? No, ma'am. So, no permit issued. No permit applied for. And the photograph show the pile still there. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. There is a representative here for
the property owner. Sorry. Is that you, sir? What's your name, sir? Uh, my name is P Paulo Santana. I am just uh in representing the property as the agricultural operator. I just make a correction. uh you owner. Um that's the
information about the pile being there is inaccurate. The pile is being removed every day. This is an ongoing agricultural operation and we have like a trucks uh taking everything out on a daily basis. We have uh invoices and receipts or all the trucks that have
been removed at. Okay. So we'll we'll get into all that. Let's start with the easy part. Uh I guess first step is so you're the you're the tenant is that? Yeah. I I I operate the agricultural operation for uh Mr. Javier.
Mr. Javier has a very delicated health situation. He's in hospital right now. He does dialysis four to five days a week. Okay. And it's access to him is very very very uh close to impossible. Does he know that you're here this morning? He does. And he authorized you to be here on
he authorized me and he was willing to come but he was uh uh received in an emergency um situation at 5:00 a.m. this morning. Okay. And the town obviously included this letter from June 18th in the case file.
Um, so Mr. Garcia has an attorney, but he's not here or she's not here today. Uh, Mr. Garcia does have an attorney for the propose of a uh possibility that we would have to uh lift the the the
legal action on uh on um court since we we are grounded on the preeemption of the agricultural exemption for this operation which preempt the local ordinances over the agricultural Oh,
okay. Let me ask the town to show him the case file. I guess I have This is exactly the same as what what you have there. Yes, ma'am. So, if you can show him the case file and ask him if he has any objection to those documents. She's going to show you the evidentiary case file that the town will ask me to admit into the record and
ask if you have any objection to those documents. Yeah, this is correct. That was sent to us last night. The memorandum of law is correct. This is the land use maping.
This notices of status final assessment. I do not have the knowledge about how he or did he receive that since I said he spends his
entire life in the hospital. Rosa shall be his wife. Yes. I receive affidavit of service. Um those picture were taken from they were taken on July 2nd. The date
was right up here on the photo in the property. So the the code enforcement had access to the property. No. Uh right. The pictures were taken from the neighboring property. the neighbor outside of the property. Yes.
All right. Okay. Pictures that we have are from the neighboring property with permission of the neighbors. So, but the the the picture was never taken from so there was never a insight revision of the property. No. Right. one
more time. This this picture is from the neighbor of the property. Yes, sir. Not to the property. May we have it on record that the pictures were taken from the neighbor's house to the property and not from the in
record because the pictures are timestamped with the neighboring's address on the pictures. Yeah, that's fine. That's of no legal significance, but yeah, that's fine. If you want you made the comment, so that's fine. Right. They're not allowed to go onto the property without permission. So that's correct. Why they Yeah.
probably went to the neighbor. I can't speak for the town, but that's my presumption. So any objection to the just the documents themselves? I I had read all the documents here. Any objection to them being entered into the case file into the uh record rather? Your honor, I I have an objection that
the the as as I mentioned before that this pile of manure remains there which is not the case. It was removed and and fully clean and we have new piles coming in and coming out as every day.
Okay. uh uh as of today this pile might be reduced by 95%. At the end of the day should be clear and back to be ongoing tomorrow. Okay, that's uh that's my my statement.
Um everything else uh I can see clearly that uh the the sleep was signed by uh a person with the exact same name of the wife of the owner of the property.
Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So with that uh for the record in case 254004 I'm going to enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one
uh without or I guess over objection uh of respondents agent. Um I guess I'll note for the record the town has included this June 18th uh correspondence from the attorney uh
as part of the case file. Um, but the language in this is not uh there's there's a process to appeal code enforcement orders and and this is not the process. So, uh I'm not going to make take any action or make any ruling as it relates to that June 18th letter.
I'll just let it stay in the case file uh for for what it is. Um anything further from you, sir? So, what what's I guess tell me about the permit. What's the status of the permit? The town's telling me you haven't applied for a permit. There's no permit issued. So, what's going on there? Which permit are
we talking about? The permit required for manure and horse bedding. There is at to my knowledge there is no uh uh such a thing of on in our case because we are not receiving manure or
as a commercial dump site. The manure is just being disposed there processed into soil and being sent to our agricultural receivables in Pahoki and Belgate. Okay. Okay. Anything further from you, sir?
Yes. I would like to just uh uh make a oral statement over uh what we stand for. So, good morning, owner. Uh my name is Paulo Santana, as I mentioned before, and I appear here today as authorized agricultural operator on the property 1470A Road. I'm here
alongside Mr. Javier Garcia, which could not come. is hospitalized. We appreciate the opportunity to speak and respectfully request that the special magistrate consider and rule our motion to dismiss before any fine assessed or findings of facts are entered. The
property in question officially classified as agricultural under Florida's green belt law. I have here the statute which is 193461 and it has been used in good faith for legitimate from farm operations specifically the collection reuse and
processing horse manure and wood shavings for soil amendment. This is a protected agricultural activity. The town is citing us under local code sessions 3043, 3044 and 20015,
but we respectly submit that those ordinance are preempted by state law and cannot be enforced on this land. Our motion and supporting memorandum site the following laws that govern this which is the Florida right to farm act
823.14 which prohibits local government from enforcing ordinances that restrict farm operations on agricultural land. Also agricultural lands and practice act 1633162
the Florida statute which bars local regulation of farm practice that follow best management standards farm building code exemption will not going to be the case we don't have uh uh any any code of building enforcement here and most
recently the HB211 which was approved uh uh um last month which confirms that the manure reuse Biomass processing and soil conditioning are lawful farm uses, not subject to local restriction.
Our goal here today is not to be confrontational at all. We are farmers. We are part of the rural and agricultural character of Loxahhatchi Groves. We clean stalls, repropose natural material, and support soil health, not run a commercial dump site.
Our work is protected, and we've been doing this in accordance with state best practices. But respectfully, your honor, the special magistrate cannot access fines shall not respectfully again where jurisdictional is legally
preempted as held by Florida courts including BT LLC versus village of Wellington and as reaffirmed in Love it versus Love it. A tribunal must rule on subject matter jurisdiction first before
reaching fines of fact or setting penalties. That that's what we are asking for today. A ruling on our motion to dismiss based on the clear lack of authority under Florida law. We have submitted everything in good faith. Agricultural documents, legal citations,
and state confirmed classification. We simply ask that the law be applied not just town ordinances but the binding statutes of Florida that preempts them. We respectfully ask that the court grant our motion to dismiss vacate any prior finding of violation and close
enforcement case. We are willing to answer any question and provide any support evidence to help your honor to reach a fair and lawfully decision. Thank you. Were the administrative costs for the June hearing paid? No, your honor.
Okay. So, sir, just so you understand where where your client or your your the person you're assisting is in the process, I already found the property in violation back in June. So, this is strictly a fine assessment hearing. Any arguments you have as to the propriety of of the original finding of violation,
it's for your client's attorney to deal with. Uh, and that appeal is to the circuit court, not to me. So, uh, I'm not going to discuss the merits of the violation. That's already been found. You have an order that reflects those those findings, uh, from June, that June 2nd hearing. So, today, the only thing
that I have the authority to do is determine whether or not the violation persists after the date that I mandated in that prior order, which was June 2nd. If it does, then I start a fine running. That's how these these orders work. Again, to the extent you want to uh appeal the prior finding, you can do
that, but you need to go through the proper process to do that. Understand? So, as you heard me say earlier with regard to that June 18th, I guess what you're calling a motion to dismiss. I'm not going to act on that. Uh I've already made my ruling back in June as it relates to the violations on the property, they've already been found. I
already signed an order to that effect. So, uh any appellet rights you have, you need to effectuate those through the proper process. Um, anything else you'd like me to hear hearing that sir? Uh, just uh as as I said uh your honor,
uh the the allegations of violations are uh inaccurate since as I said all the manure is being removed on a daily basis. If the code enforcement shows up at 5:00 p.m. they will find nothing there. If they shows up at 10 a.m. they
might find a pile. So uh uh I I believe that the the we we got into a um confusing um evidentiary of over the violation continues or if this is a a
ongoing agricultural operation because the manure that's been there, it's no longer there since probably 48 hours after the the the picture was taken from the neighbor. Okay.
Thank you, sir. Anything further from the town? Um, yes, your magistrate. Um, according to the property appraiser records, the property use code is 01000 single family. The zoning is AR agricultural
residential. With that property use code of single family, there's not supposed to be a business running and operating there. It's single family. So, I appreciate that testimony, but the same comment stands. I've already found them in violation, so I'm not here to relitigate that. Um, that
that that order has already been signed. I'm comfortable with that ruling from the June hearing. Um, today's job is just whether or not the violations persist after the date specified, which I think if nothing else based on the permits uh and the use continuing is
very clear. I guess one question for town staff who took the photographs on the second. Was the town out there after the second? No, ma'am. That was the the checkup after the 30 days. That picture was the check after the 30
days. Went out and took the picture. So the he's what he says is true. Like the the manure may be removed, but at 6:30 7:00 in the morning in the morning, there's another mountain of manure. Yeah. No, I get that. I don't even want to get into that cuz that's a that's a whole another that that we're going back
to the violation and and that I've already made a ruling on. Okay. And as of today, there's no permit been applied for, no permit been issued. Correct. And as of today, the testimony of the town is that the same manure operation exists today as it did back in June. Is that correct? Correct. Yes, ma'am. Okay.
All right. With that, in case 254 00004, I've entered the uh composite exhibit one over objection of respondents authorized agent. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include both an
affidavit of service showing posting of the uh notice documentation as well as a signed certified mail for the previous order finding violation that the town had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of town
staff as well as the documents in the case file that the respondent remains in violation of sections 30-43, 30-44, and 20-015. Uh, and that violation persists after the compliance date specified in the
previous order finding violation dated June 2nd, which required compliance no later than July 2nd, 2025. So, with that, I'm going to assess a fine in the amount of $500. That's $100 per day per the previous order beginning on July 3rd through today, July 7th,
which is a total of 5 days. And continuing to acrewue at $100 per day until compliance is achieved. I'm going to assess the town's administrative costs for today's hearing in the amount of 23405. And I'm going to reaffirm the administrative costs from the June 2nd hearing, which remain
unpaid, also in the amount of 23405. So you'll get an order that reflects all of that. Okay, sir. Yes, your honor. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Madam Magistrate. At this time, we'll be
removing item three, which is the Buck Passer LLC. You're You can go, sir. Thank you. We'll be removing item three from the agenda. Okay. And the next item on the agenda is for Fine Assessment, and that property is American Print Tax Investment, Inc., And
the address for that property is 1876 E Road, Locksah Hatchee Groves, Florida 33470. The case number for the the case number for today is 255030101. The violation section includes 92-010
RV registration/permit inspection and maintenance requirements. Good morning. Special magistrate code off code enforcement officer Deanna Thomas presenting case number 25503 0101
uh in reference to the property at 1876 E road. Copy of the notice of status find assessment hearing along with the order finding violation was mailed certified on June 26, 2025 to the property owner that is listed on the Palm Beach uh
property appraiser records. A copy of the notice of status fine assessment hearing along with the order finding violation was posted on the property on June 26, 2025. A copy of the same was also posted at town hall June 26, 2025.
The property was initially cited on May 3rd, 2025 for the following violation section 92-010 RV registration permit inspection and maintenance requirements. The case was heard by the special magistrate on June
2nd, 2025, where the magistrate found for the town. No contact has been made with the property owner. As of July 2nd, 2025, the violation still exists. There are two RVs seen from the public right ofway without an affidavit or a RV
registration permit on file. The town is requesting a daily fine to be imposed of $100 starting on July 3rd, 2025. The town is also requesting administration costs of 23405 to be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of
Locksahhatchee girls. And is this I guess I should have asked this on the last case too or the one before that maybe but is this a new process the notice of hearings that you're attaching to the orders? Um yes because we we thought that would
be sufficient too because we do send the orders once you send them to us the original the from the hearing we do send them but are you doing them together? Are you posting them together? No. Well the second batch for the status fine assessment hearing we include them.
So when you post this additional notice the order finding violation is with it also attached. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Any communication with the respondent? None at all. Is the respondent present for the record? No, ma'am.
Seeing none. In case 2530101, the the respondent is not present. No permit on file. No, ma'am. No application on file. No, ma'am. As of today? As of today? No. Okay. Okay. And who who took these photos from? Who
re did the reinspection? Um, officer uh Suarez had done it. I'm presenting the case. Okay. Cuz he is not here. Oh, here it is. All right. Anything further from the town? No, ma'am.
Oh, I guess one more question. Were the administrative fees from the June hearing paid? No. Okay. Okay. All right. Nothing further. Nothing further. All right. Thank you. With that, in case 25301 01, I'm going to enter the town's
evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'm going to find based on the uh affidavit of posting in the case file as well as the uh all the notice documents in the case file that the town had good
service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of the code enforcement officer as well as the documents in the case file that the respondant remains in violation of section 92-010 uh having not complied with the previous order finding violation from June 2nd
which required compliance on or before July 2nd. Therefore, I will assess a fine of $500 for the 5 days between July 3rd and July 7th. And that fine will continue to run
at $100 per day per the previous order uh until the violation is cured. I'll assess the town's administrative cost for today's hearing in the amount of 23405 and I'll reaffirm the town's administrative uh costs from the June
2nd hearing also in the amount of 23405. Thank you. coordinating at this time, madam magistrate, there is no further business of the town of Lock Hatche Groves.
Okay. Is the Is there a hearing on the midmon? Normally the meeting would have been the 16th. Yeah. But are we going to keep the 16th or move it to the We are keeping the 16th. Okay. The next meeting will be the 16th
and we'll send you a calendar invite. Just as a reminder, I Yeah, I have it on there. I just wanted to make sure if there was anything different that uh I found out now. Okay. Anything further for the magistrate? No, ma'am. No, ma'am. All right. With that, I will adjourn the hearing at 9:50.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.