My name is Amity Bernard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing. First thing I'm going to do, I guess, is ask if there is anybody yet on remotely. Okay. Uh what I'll do in the meantime, I do
believe uh historically there's been a respondent council that appears on the on the Zoom. So, I expect maybe he'll show up here. But in the meantime, I'll swear everybody who's going to speak on any items on today's agenda who's in the room with us. So, if you're going to speak, uh, if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hands.
Thank you. Do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. And then process on this one, I think this is a um kind of a status bind assessment
hearing is is sort of my recollection here. But um so in this one, I think the process will be the same as for violation hearings where the town will go first, present any evidence, and then the respondent will then get an opportunity to to counter and cross-examine any witnesses. Um anybody on the computer, can you hear me?
I assume a box will pop up when they appear. Um, have you had communication with I I have had communication in the sense that I emailed him and I have received
an email from him earlier in the week. I put a call into him um on I think it was Wednesday, but I don't believe I heard back uh from him. Maybe we and call him since uh previously he would have gotten the Zoom link just recently.
Yeah. and he was present at the August 4th hearing when I ordered this hearing. So, he was certainly aware of this hearing. Um, but if he's not on there, it was certainly my understanding that he would be appearing. So, if there's an opportunity to reach out, if we could try that, I don't know if Yeah, I don't
know if the town has his uh phone number and can put a quick call into him. And just for the record, um the magistrate, we have um the town does have good service from the property owners, Lantana Holdings LLC. We
received their signed green card back. Yeah, let's hold off on that testimony until he if if let's just confirm whether there's going to be a a representative and just so he hears all testimony. Yeah, because I certainly thought based on the last hearing that it was his intent to
be present here this morning. Hi, Cody. This is Jeff Curts, town attorney for the town locks at Groves. Um, it was it was just recently sent to to you um probably in the last 5 to 10
minutes. Um, do you want to check your email? I can't. Okay. Thank you. Take care. So, was that Mr. German and he is logging in? Is that correct?
Yes, that's the that was his representation that he had received it. He's in the process of logging in. Okay. So, we'll give him a minute to do that. Yeah. All right, Mr. German, can you hear me? I can. I'm sorry about that. I I just
got a call from Mr. alerting me that the that the link had just been sent. Okay, perfect. So, um, just I know who you are, but and I can see your face, but can you just state your name for the record, sir? Yes. Cody German on behalf of the tenant
that's operating the pet rice track. And what's the name of the tenant again? Your le lawful name is give me one sec. I know I should know this offh hand.
Um Jeff, do you happen to have their legal name in front of you? It's FEP Holdings. Furb Holdings. All right. Right. Thank you. And uh Mr. Gentleman, before you appear, just just
uh for full transparency, I obviously introduced myself. I swore in uh the members of town staff who are sitting in the room and explained a little bit about process very briefly. Um your case is the only case that's on today's agenda. Um, and the the sort of order of process will be the same as it is in all
other hearings that you've appeared at where the town will uh go first and then you will get an opportunity to go second uh and present any evidence or testimony that you have. So with that uh I'll turn it back to the town uh to present and to introduce the case.
Good morning uh code officer Deanna Thomas Groves. Uh this is Lance Hannah Holdings LLC 16169 Southern Boulevard, Locka Hatchee Groves, Florida 33470.
Case numbers 23100 03 and 231 00006. uh the violations previously found in violation of code section 87-030
removal permit and 20-017 prohibited use. And we do have um proper service. We did receive the green card back from Lantana Holdings LLC, the property owner.
And if you'd like to see that, I can bring it up to you. Yeah, I guess uh in terms of evidentiary case file, are you intending to enter? I guess show me anything that you're intending to enter for today's hearing.
Um, Magistrate Jeff Curts, uh, town attorney as of August 7th, uh, of this year. And I mentioned that just because it's, uh, been a short time that I have had this
role and become familiar with this particular case. Just let me just stop you there quickly. Mr. German, can you hear him? Mr. I can. Yes. Okay. Very good. Go ahead. I'm sorry, sir. That's all right. With respect to to
this case, um procedurally, we're in somewhat of a strange um place. There was a stipulation that was entered into by the the parties um back in
2023. It was then there was a first amendment to uh the stipulated agreement on July 20th. I'm miss see July 24th I think it was of uh 2023.
Um there had been hearings before you in April of 2024 and there have been a series of continuences that have led us to today. When I looked back at the proceedings,
uh it it seems to to me that this has been categorized as a fine assessment/status uh conference. And one of the issues had to do, I think, with uh your authority
to consider the dissolution of the uh the stipulation. Uh and upon upon the um dissolution of the stipulation
uh there are a couple of remaining paragraphs uh being paragraphs six and and seven. Um paragraph six establishes finds retroactive to the date of the
amendment related to the use violation. Um uh and so that would go back uh about 786 days at $250 a day. So there's a potential fine out there that's been
running or held in obeyance of $196,500 to date. Then there is another fine that is associated with um compliance of uh article 87 which has to do with the
tree violations and the tree removals. It is my understanding with respect to both of those cases, um the the tree case being uh the 006 um and the um
uh and the use violation case being the 003 case that you've already found them to be in violation. Um uh and this stipulation was something that the parties had
agreed to and you had adopted as an order. Um and basically when I look at these things I it seems to me that the fines were being held in obeyance subject to
the respondents compliance with uh the terms of the stipulation. One of the things that I did not find and um our code and enforcement officer did not find was an affidavit of
non-compliance being filed by the town. And that affidavit of non-compliance is the actual trigger for the dissolution of
the stipulation and the imposition of the the fines. I guess my question to you as the magistrate because I think you had asked for the briefing on uh
your authority and uh the town has filed a response to that. I do not believe that the respondent or um Mr. German on behalf of the tenants has filed a a response. Um our position
is that uh you do have the authority to consider the uh dissolution of the stipulation that um there has your honor has retained jurisdiction
over these matters. um uh and it is able to be brought before you. Once again, the town has not triggered as far as I could tell from the file. You may have a since you've been involved in it, maybe
you can say, "Oh, no, Jeff, back in April, we did that." Um what I saw was there was some testimony with regard to non-compliance but not an actual affidavit of non-compliance and those are
slightly different and I don't want to uh belabor that point. I think it is simple enough for us as the town to enter the affidavit of non-compliance um assuming that your honor uh has
considered the issue of whether or not you retain jurisdiction um you know based on the the briefing that was provided. All right. So with that I guess let me um have you pause there with that
explanation. So the certified males can I see is that the only thing you're intending from an evidentiary perspective to enter? Yes. To show that we do have uh service and that although the respondent has not appeared um they were put on notice and
therefore uh we can move forward with this case. And what was sent on these was the my last order right from August 4th. Yeah. Okay. So, Mr. German, since you're remote, um
I presume this was not provided to Mr. German in advance. Yes, it was. Get a copy of it um via email. Okay. Mr. German, is is that correct? Do you receive a copy of the signed certified mail um confirming that the prior order that I issued on August 4th
uh was delivered? Yes. My the only part I would raise is I'm not sure the notice has been provided to this from the landowner. Um I just can't speak to that issue. I don't represent
the land owner. Um, and I don't know if they've received notice of this hearing. And what what let me ask you, cuz that was the next question I was going to have for you. So, what if if this certified mail was sent to you? This was sent to Lantana Holdings LLC. So, that
is the landowner. Uh, the certified mail was sent to them as required by state law. But what what is the status of your discussions with Lantana Holdings LLC? I know at prior hearings uh they appeared and you know my recollection and in rereading the stipulations is that
Lantana Holdings has uh waved service of process basically in all future hearings given the stipulation. So I I don't think there's a service issue but are you still in communication with them or their council? Uh the answer is yes. So full transparency my client is a tenant of
the property with an option to purchase. The option to purchase actually sp expires on September 1st. um my client has been waiting on an investment in a unrelated business to help fund the the um acquisition of this
property and that's been tied up. So, I'm working with the landowner's attorney to try to deal with that issue in the hopes that my client is able to get some sort of extension on the option to purchase and purchase the property. I think that's the landowner. I can't
speak for them, but it's my understanding that that's the landowner's intent. certainly my clients intend to purchase the property, but it does create somewhat of a of a um hurdle in regard to uh what we're discussing because, you know, I think the land
owners whether or not they're getting notice, I think that they're somewhat uncertain. Are they on do they own this property for the long haul or not? But as we sit here today, they do own the property. Okay. And do they do they understand that you're appearing and you continue to appear at these hearings on behalf of
the tenant? Uh yes. To the best of my acknowledgement. Okay. All right. So, Mr. German, I'm going to give you an opportunity. Uh you've heard from Mr. Curts before I speak at all uh with regard to the merits. I'd like to
hear your side. Uh and I would like um to question you. I I did not receive uh the required memorandum that was requested in my prior memo. So, I'd like to hear a reason why you didn't submit anything. Uh the reason is because we're we're in agreement. My client's in agreement to
terminate the stipulation. We're not we're not opposing the termination of the stipulation. Um certainly we'd like the opportunity to come back. It's my understanding that that the items that were not in compliance are in near compliance. Um
and to come back and address the fines at that point in time. Okay. All right. Uh just procedurally let me in the record uh for cases 2301 0003 and 230100006.
I'll enter uh the documents that the town has handed me which include the prior order finding via excuse me prior order granting continuence dated August 4th and the uh confirmation of uh signed certified mail
for that uh prior order having been signed and returned to the town. And I'll enter that as composite exhibit one. Mr. German, you don't have any objection to that entry. No. All right. Without objection.
And let me just Does the town have a copy of the first amend amended uh stipulation? Yes. copy the stipulation and the first amendment. Yeah, I have the originals. I just don't have the first amendmented. Okay, thank
you. All right. So, let's deal with the uh service language in the stipulated agreement just so the record is clear. Not only do we have a certified male, but paragraph 11 of the uh fully executed joint stipulations says, "By signing this agreement, owner agrees
that all procedural due process rights relative to this case are hereby waved." So, uh, having been provided a copy of the certified mail of the prior order and also noting paragraph 11 in the joint stipulated agreement, I'm going to
find that the town has uh, legally sufficient service for today's hearing. All right. So, here's and just this this has been going on for quite some time. So, and I had to go back to refresh my memory yesterday of of how we got this
far into the process, but it was my understanding back in April of 2024, there was a request that the email, though the email doesn't state, I think it was a joint request of both of the parties for a special set hearing which was held on April 30th to deal with this
issue. Obviously, that hearing was held and there was an order that came from it and that was the first order that mandated that was the first hearing where I questioned my authority because once the parties take this sort of out of my jurisdiction and
and you all agree to a joint stipulation, it's no longer my case to to essentially prosecute. So, um, my questioning that authority happened back in April of of 2024 and then as you noticed or as you, um, put on the
record, there were several continuences granted from April 2024 to ultimately today's hearing. What I don't know is on some of those hearings there obviously Mr. German was a was present at I think all of them. Um, I didn't verify that, but I'm I'm nearly certain he was at all
of them. But my concern is that we're a year and a half past the first request to have me do something with this. And I don't know why this continued to bump because now you're saying there's 785 days or or whatever it is of u potential
fines that could have been dealt with um pursuant to the joint stipulation. So before I say anything else, what is the ask of the parties of me today? What what is the request of the special magistrate today? You want me?
I'm going to give both of you an opportunity. So, I'll let Mr. Curts go first and then I'll let you um explain to me what your ask is, Mr. German. Um, from the town's perspective, I think where we need to get is uh the
understanding of how to to move forward. I think that this matter re remains within your jurisdiction. Uh I think there is a step as I indicated that the town needs to take with respect to the
dissolution of the uh agreement. I think it is a relatively simple step because I don't think there's really any argument that they are in compliance with the uh the the terms of the
stipulation. So we have to do an affidavit of non-compliance. at that point in time. I think that this order, the existing
order is in essence um an order that held the fines in obeyance, but they have been set. Um I think for clarity, we would probably come back to to you to
affirm that. Um uh and uh the uh owner of the property can come in and make an argument as to why that penalty may be uh too harsh or whatever it is
because you know whether it's in the form of a a fine reduction or um an argument al along those lines um as I said the the order um with respect to the use case um would be on at this
moment $196,500. Uh the order in the ' 06 case um which is the the tree violation and our position is that they are still non-compliant with that because we have not received a a bond
um uh that's associated with the the vegetation removal permit. uh you know and I will estimate that amount on a daily basis and it's like a gazillion dollars uh at 11,452.
It's uh on the order of 50 times the 196. So not probably a a gazillion but probably close to the value of the property. Um, so I would anticipate that they would make some argument uh as to
uh what that number should be. Um, we haven't had a chance to to discuss that. So I don't know what the town's position would be uh in that regard, but I think we need to move this forward. There was a law there was a
finding a violation um back in 2023. they are still non-compliant. There were these determinations which as I said uh appears to me to be a a holding of the um assessment in advance but the
assessment was set. Um so time to to move forward. And um the other thing that is in this order that survives uh is a 90-day um termination of the use provision
seven. Uh I'm sorry, that's paragraph 7. and that calls for them to cease the use and return the property uh to its previous condition within 90 days of uh the termination of this stipulation.
So, it's a it's a very serious matter. I don't want anybody to take it lightly, but I think that's the impact um of where we're at. Um, and I can't speak to
why steps were not taken to affectuate the termination previously other than I know that the parties were at one point in time uh talking about revisions to the the stipulation, but that has not come forward and we've given that process enough time.
Okay. Mr. German, anything you'd like to explain to me about what uh what your ask is to me this morning? Yeah. So, no one has mentioned to me what I just heard as far as terminating the use of this property. That'd be complete news to me and I can assure you
that that I would be there and present with witnesses and the like if I knew that that's what they were asking for. What has been relayed to me is that we will terminate and this is with prior council for the town. We've talked about this for a long time. It's been going on
for a year. Um, and as someone who's been involved this entire time period, I don't really have a good excuse as to why this has dried down so long. It hasn't been on the front burner from my client's perspective. Obviously, it's more of a town's position than mine. The issue is um we're okay with terminating
the stipulation and we don't agree to any ascertained fine amount today to to table that for another day. If the town wants to try to ascertain what that amount would be, um, we would deal with it at that point in time.
um and my client once this property is put um into full compliance, which it's not far from happening, um that then we could come back and and my client have the right to seek a mitigation of those fines. That's what that's what my client
has been agreeable to all along. uh the notion that the town now from what I just heard, which is honestly quite shocking because no one's brought this to my attention um certainly not in writing, not orally before what I just heard. And that and
the issue of trying to terminate the use of this property, I mean, that that would that would be a serious legal matter of which my client would pursue very aggressively against the town. My client's been obviously able to operate this uh business for quite some time.
um without the town making such a draconian request. Number one. Number two, there's a whole issue as far as how we got here before the stipulation was entered into the representations made by town officials and an issue within the town code about the use of of this track
of which the town shifted their position. Um what's been talked about between myself and even Francine and other people from the town who are not there this morning that does figure is that after this property um is into compliance that my client would make a
presentation to the town council as far as um the town code and regulations and why we believe that this property is is already being used in compliance with the code or whether an amendment needs to be made.
All right. So, I guess Mr. Mr. German, I'm a little confused that that you're not aware of the use issue. Because if you look at the stipulation at paragraph 7, it says, "Should this agreement be terminated for material non-compliance, the owner shall cease use of and remove all unpermitted improvements from the property within 90 days or the town may
utilize the bond to remove the improvements. This provision shall survive termination of this agreement." So that that was an agreed to uh provision of the joint stipulation which is remains in effect. Um, so you know, Tanya and I, uh, Tanya Early, the prior
council and I were working on a proposed order in that regard, which quite frankly she had sent to me that didn't didn't have that type of language in it. Okay. That would have been a good reason to enter into that stipulation, I suspect.
Yeah. So, I I think um, never we never refused to. Yeah. Yeah, there there's been a lot going on and that that was my, you know, my concern on cases where there's multiple continuence, this is exactly what becomes the problem is that you just get the can get kicked so far down the road that it doesn't benefit
anybody. Um, but I I guess I just want to read into the record, I I think that this hearing is is I think to Mr. Kurtz's point uh premature. So, I didn't have the benefit of the first amended uh agreement yesterday when I reviewed all these files, but I just want to read for
uh both the parties that in the first amended first amendment to stipulated agreement which is dated June 27, 2023. The paragraph 7 says the parties agree to modify paragraph six of the agreement as follows. And number six, as per now
the first amended first amended stipulation says, if owners fail to comply with the non-compliance, excuse me, with the compliance schedule, the town will record an affidavit of non-compliance in the public records and this agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no force in effect except that the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 shall survive such termination.
Additionally, upon the recording of the affidavit of non-compliance, the town will seek an order imposing fines as follows. And then it sets forth uh very similar language that was in the original um stipulation with regard to the two different case numbers and the fine amounts uh for those cases which I
don't think is pertinent here. So I'm not going to read those into the record. But the pertinent part of that language is the part that states additionally upon the recording of an affidavit of non-compliance, the town will seek an order imposing fines. So, if the testimony this morning is that the town has not recorded an affidavit of
compliance, uh, we're not at the point for an order to be imposed. Um, and I think this this first amendment changes, you know, the original amendment in my mind was self-executing and didn't require anything further of the magistrate. it was you all agreed to
this this document and if there was a violation of the compliance schedule, it was an automatic termination uh once the town recorded the the affidavit of non-compliance. I think the language now in section six as it's been amended uh does allow the town to bring this back
to me um after the affidavit of non-compliance is recorded. However, uh the testimony this morning is that that has not yet been done and I have not been provided a copy of that recorded affidavit. I don't think that it is uh prudent for me to do anything in terms of uh granting any orders this morning.
So, um I'm happy if if the parties I mean you can either renotice it or I'm happy to grant a continuence if that's the request to the next hearing. Um or you can simply renotice it however the town would like to proceed. But I don't
think uh that the case is actually ripe for me to issue an order based on what I've heard this morning. Um we would like it to be uh continued um to another date. Um we're immuneable to
a special set or we can put it on the not the first meeting in September but uh the second meeting in September the Wednesday hearing. The Wednesday hearing. And I guess I I want to speak with councel for the Tom Moore beforehand
because I was not of the understanding whatsoever based on my prior call uh conversations with council including ton Tanya early and and I believe Ben Sarver that any agreement to terminate the stipulation in this regard would then be
held against my client saying they need to essentially put the property back to what it was before they conducted significant construction on the property. Yeah. Yeah. And I I can't speak to the obviously the discussions that have gone on outside of these hearings, but I
would certainly uh the language in these stipulations is is pretty severe uh to your point, Mr. German. So, if there's an opportunity for the parties to get into some agreement, which is what I thought was happening all along, uh, now is the time because I think after reviewing all of this yesterday, um, I
don't think that the granting of these continuances was beneficial. So, in the future, I think I'm going to be a little bit uh, less lenient on that. Um, because I think what ultimately is going to have happened here is a year and a half has gone by and the same fine amount could have been imposed a year and a half ago uh, and this would have
been done. So, I I think this one I'm sure that there was conversations outside that were trying to come to to some agreement, but um regardless the language and the stipulations is is what is controlling because that's what the parties have agreed to. Um and particularly in the second, excuse me,
in the first amendment um you your your client uh Mr. German joined in on that stipulation. So, uh certainly all the parties are were in agreement at least as it relates to that language. So, um with that, anything further from you, Mr. German.
Uh, no, nothing further from me. All right. Anything from further from the town? No. All right. with that in uh cases 2301 00003 and 23010006
uh having already entered the uh record and f and found a uh legally sufficient notice for today's hearing, I'm going to uh continue this matter uh and simply reset it for the September 17th uh hearing at 9:00 a.m.
Thank you. Can um is someone able to provide will with a notice to that hearing? Will there be a separate notice for it? There'll be there's an order that order. Yeah. I'll I'll uh issue an order today that resets the matter for September
17th and I expect uh the town can provide you with a copy of that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. German. Thank you. And I appreciate you allowing me to attend uh remotely.
Of course. Thank you. And then this was the only matter on the agenda. So that's nothing further. Correct. All right. With that, I will adjourn at 9:38. Thank you very much. Thank you. Would it be possible for you to to make me copies of these first amendments before
I leave? I can have this one. Yes. Okay. Thank you. There's your paperwork back. But see,