February 3rd, 2026. It's 9:02, so we can get started. My name is Amity Bernard. I'm the special magistrate for today's hearing. First thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to testify on any items that are on today's agenda, including town staff. Uh, and then before we do that, let me ask, it
appears that we have somebody virtually. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Is it just one person? >> There's two people. >> Okay. Both attorneys? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay, we'll get to that when we get there. Sir, can you hear me uh on the computer?
>> Yes. >> Okay, very good. I just want to make sure that was working. So, uh with that, but going back to the swearing in, uh if you're here to testify on any items on today's agenda, including anybody who's on the uh computer, if you could all stand if you're able and raise your right hands. I'll swear you all in at the same time.
And I presume the two of you seated are attorneys. Is that correct? Very good. Do you all swear? Code enforcement officer, raise your right hand, please. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. You may be seated. A little bit about process. It looks like most of the cases on today's agenda
are violation hearings uh and continuences. So, for all of those cases, the procedure will be the same. The town is seated at the table in front of me. The podium to my right, to your left, is where you will go when you hear your case called. The town will put on its case first. They will present any evidence that they'd wish me to review.
call any witnesses that they wish me to hear from. Uh once the town has concluded its presentation, you will then come to that podium. Uh present any documents you want me to review, cross-examine any witnesses that the town has put on, and at the end of hearing both sides, I'll make a final ruling, and you'll get a copy of an order that reflects that ruling after
the hearing today. So, with that, keep in mind that all of your testimony given this morning is given under oath, and I'll turn it to the town to call it first case. >> First case is Jose and Raymond Bellerino, Jr., Uh, address 2241A Road
PCN number 414 43 2400 01030. Case number C25-56. ULDC sections 175-110. Permits required 1751 170 general 175125. Application for
a permit approval 175-240. Violations 05040. Permits required expiration of permits and development orders. Florida Building Code section 105.1 Building Code require building permit required. Code of Ordinances section 18-21A1-2
tree vegetation removal 18-24A tree mitigation. Turn this over to staff. >> Morning your honor. For the record, go compliance officer John Suare is presenting KC 2556 in reference to the property located at 2241A Road. Notice violation notice of hearing was posted
at the property on December 16th, 2025. A copy of the notice violation notice of hearing was also mailed certified mail on the same date and it was also posted here at town town hall. Um the violations that exist are section
175 codes where um the property owner brought in Phil changed the topography of the land. There is no uh site development FDA permit on file. There is a building structure poleb barn on the property without the without a proper
permit and the parcel was cleared of trees and so there is no uh general permit for the clearing and uh they're in violation of a tree mitigation. It's important to note that the property is
zoned or property use vacant. So, nothing should be on the property and no permits are on file at this time. We are requesting 30 days to apply for all necessary permits, 60 days for permit issuance.
Town is requesting a fine of $250 a day per violation upon non-compliance. Additionally, it's recommended that administrative costs incurred in the amount of $2345 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Lockachi Groves and the town wants to admit the full
case folder. Is a respondent present for this case? >> And none of the people on the computer are for this case. Can they still hear me? No, >> we can hear you. >> None of you on the computer are here for 2241A road. Is that correct?
>> Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you both. It's the computer. It's got to be there. So, Mr. Suarez, you sent your notice in December, is that right? But your photographs appear to be from March of
2025. Were you out there more recent than March? >> Um, there's older photographs because there was an older case and that case was he brought in Bill So that was ongoing. That's why I have older pictures. But the problem worsened. He
even created a burm in the front of the property, which I have the, you know, pictures of from this morning. And so since he changed the the topography after those pictures, we had to go after site development. It's just an ongoing it was an ongoing
issue. And we tried working with the property owner, but to no avail. And the barn is still there. The pole barn, >> the structure is still there. >> So in the future, I need photographs that are contemporaneous with your notice of violation. Um, you have
photographs from today that I haven't gotten to a pole barn photo. Yeah, here's the last one. Has a pole barn in it, but your photographs should be a little bit more recent. I understand there was an older case, but let me ask you about that because I recognize this uh the names of these respondents. They must have been before me recently.
There's not a current case for these sections of the town code. Correct? >> There is not. >> Okay. And then the material that I'm looking at in terms of earth moving, is it just the random little piles or is it more than that? Like I said, he created the burm in the
front which is almost 3 ft in height and it's the length of the front parcel along a road. So I should have a few pictures on both sides of the entrance. Is >> this what you're referring to? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So now he put Kucio's up on there
created a front hedge almost. >> Okay. And no permit application in at the town. >> No ma'am. Okay. And then the tree clearing, did you observe that? >> It was our our town contractor, Jim
Fleshman. Um, he it was a full canopy at the time of purchase. And he uh he applied, Jim was there because he applied for um Oh my gosh. He applied for a permit and Jim reviewed
the property and realized he did some clearing. It's a no permit on file neither. >> But Mr. Fleshman is not here today. >> He is not here today. >> M on the on the screen is a a pictometry showing the site back in December 20 uh
1 to February 22. >> Mr. Billy Reno purchased the property in 2022 with a full canopy. >> I see the letter that's in here, but that's strictly relying on aerial photographs and I'm not sure that that's enough. >> Um, but the town's testimony is that Mr.
Flechman was at the site and did an inspection as a result of some permit and notice clearing activity. Is that accurate? >> It is accurate. >> Okay. So, can the tree mitigation permit be obtained in 60 days? Is that possible?
>> Yes, it can. >> And you think that's a reasonable amount of time? >> I do. >> For both the tree mitigation and also the FDA permits and I guess a standard building permit. That should be more than enough time for that. All right. Did you have any recent
communication with the respondents? Um, we had a phone conversation maybe about three weeks ago with me, myself, the director, and uh Sandra, permit technician, and we've talked about the issues, but uh we did not come in agreement with anything.
>> Okay. All right. You have legally sufficient service, so I'm good to proceed. And if you've spoken with them, they obviously know what's going on. So, I'm surprised they're not here. Uh, but despite that, you have service, sufficient service for me to proceed. So, anything further from the town?
>> Nothing further. All right. In case C25-56, I'll note for the record that the respondent is not present at today's hearing. I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents
in the case file which include uh USPS delivery confirmation on the certified mail as well as an affidavit of posting that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of the code enforcement officer that the respondents are in
violation of sections 75 110 751 170 75125 7 excuse me let me start that again 175-110 1751 170 175125
175 24040 105.1 of the Florida Building Code and sections 1821A 1 and 2 and 1824A for the tree removal and tree removal permit requirements. I'll require uh respondents to apply for the required
permits within 30 days, which would be on or before uh what's today? March 2nd is a Monday. Okay. So, I'll require the respondents to comply, excuse me, to apply for the required permits on or before March 2nd, 2026
or $250 per day fine will be assessed. And I'll require respondents to have the required permits issued on or before April 2nd, 2026 or $225, excuse me, $250 day fine will be assessed for each day that the
permits uh or the violations exist thereafter, meaning that the permits have not been issued by that date. If necessary, this needs to be set for a fine assessment hearing. So, is the April is that April 15th? Is the town expecting a hearing on that
Wednesday or would you like me to set the Monday? Which would you prefer? >> I would prefer Monday. The um goodness. >> So, that'll be May 4th will be that date, the fine assessment hearing date if necessary. >> May 4th, that's fine.
>> All right. If in the event of non-compliance with both of those required time frames, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on May 4th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. because I found respondents in violation of the uh listed code sections. I'll award the town's administrative costs for today's
hearing in the amount of 23405 payable within 30 days. >> Are we addressing the tree removal as well? >> That was part of it. >> That was part of it. Apologize. >> No worries. next case. >> If we could, we've got
um a few people here uh that are just here to request continuences. Um, if you could hear those first. I think the Wnjaks um don't have a request for continuence. They're prepared to to
move forward. Um, but we do have a request for continuence on uh cases 5, six, and five, six, seven, and eight. Um,
uh, there the attorney, Mr. Stanba is um on uh online um and uh they've requested continuence and we have um
cases nine uh 10 and 11 um uh and they're represented by council here. They were going to request for a continuence. Um, and they have um the attorneys indicated
to me that she has a uh a hearing. Um, was it down downtown uh at 10:00? So perhaps we could just >> in any in any order. Are they contested continuences or are they agreed? >> Um,
>> I mean I defer to the town to call them in whatever order you want. So, okay, >> feel free to do them. >> What? >> Call them in whatever order you want. >> Why don't we take care of Mr. Stanba? Um, there and SQ Farms. That's cases 5, six, seven, and eight on your uh agenda.
Um, they involve property address 1300D. It's cases 23050020. Case 23040018. Case 23040012. Um, and case 2018-0574. Um, I'll turn it over to Mr. Stanbos so
he can explain the circumstances of his request to you, your honor. >> Yes. Good morning. Uh uh special master um if it may please the court. What I am requesting is a continuence of 30 days. Uh if you may recall from last month, I
attended the hearing and we've been working closely as best we can with attorney Kurtz to try to not contest what's being proposed. Um, we had set uh uh a plan to seek a a reduction in the
fines uh to piggy back on today. Unfortunately, your honor, life has gotten in the way. Uh my brother-in-law, Hampton King, um who is also a long time
attorney here in Palm Beach County. He passed away last Friday, a week ago. this past Friday. So, it's been um uh very difficult and trying to get work done while trying to help him. Uh his
appointee uh designate to be inventory attorney declined uh last Monday. And so I've been working closely with my sister um who also is not a practicing attorney but working
with her closely to try to get uh his firm uh he was the only partner in the firm trying to get his firm u handled. Um and uh he's got about 20 cases, your honor. And um so uh unfortunately his
associate at the time of uh the day before passing decided to give his noice uh of resignation. And so uh so I I've had to step in to help my sister. And I'm I'm I'm asking
for 30 days. I wish we were able to get everything done uh for your honor. Uh, but it's just something that um happened so quickly and and and and that's all I have to say, your honor. >> All right. Thank you. Just remind me. Sorry, your first name again.
>> Reginald. R E G I N A L D. Last name. S T A M Mary. B- A U G H. I've been a board certified real estate attorney here, admitted since 1992. >> Thank you, sir. and uh my sincerest
condolences uh for your loss. I certainly understand that sometimes things don't go as planned. So, um is the town does the town have any objection to that 30-day continuance? >> Uh no, we do not. >> Okay. And what do we have? I recall this from the prior hearing. U Mr. Stanbot, are you stipulating to service or do you
want me to have the town uh put all of its service documents on the record for today? >> I think it was stipulating to service. >> Okay. Yes. Yes. Um as far as service is concerned um uh we did stipulate last
month on service and uh we continue to stipulate as to service. >> Okay, great. All right, so 30 days would reset this matter for the March 2nd Monday hearing. Is that correct? >> Yeah, I guess it's actually 28 days because we've got February, but
>> yeah, February is a short month. Does that work for you, Mr. Stanbaugh? That that's the Monday hearing a month out from today. I I believe it's an achievable goal, your honor. I think we can get it done March 2nd. >> Yes, your honor. Okay. >> All right. Great. Anything else you'd like me to hear, Mr. Stanb?
>> No, your honor. I just thank you very much for your consideration. >> All right. Thank you, sir, and best of luck uh dealing with your personal um matters. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing further. Yeah. >> All right. All right, I'm going to read these in just so the record is clear uh
individually, but in case 23050020, I will um grant the mutually agreed continuence, noting for the record that uh respondents council has stipulated to service for this morning's hearing. So, I'll reset this matter for a hearing on
March 2nd, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Similarly, in case 23040018, I'll again note for the record uh respondents council's stipulation to good service for this morning's hearing. And with that, I'll reset this matter
for hearing on March 2nd, 2026 at 9:00 am in case 23040012. Again, I'll note for the record respondents council's stipulation of good service for this morning's hearing. And I'll reset this for hearing on March
2nd, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. And lastly, in case 2018-0574, again, I'll note for the record uh respondents council stipulation to service for this morning's hearing, and I'll reset this matter for hearing on
March 2nd, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. >> Thank you, Mr. Sambar. >> Thank you, your honor. All right, next case. What did did he want to do nine? Is that what we were doing? The next cases are number 910 and 11.
Um, case number 2308006, 20206131 and 2021-014. >> That's you, ma'am. >> Yes. Lisa Gman, >> come to the podium and and uh give me your appearance on the microphone, please, if you could. >> Yes, attorney Lisa Gman for the
respondent uh Aido Dwarte and Hazel Sharwin >> and your counelor >> and we're requesting a continuence. The the file attorney, Dan Rose, is out of town. I'm standing in. Additionally, my client is present in the courtroom. He
has done they did have an inspection last Friday. However, since last Friday over the weekend, he did a lot more work and he has pictures available to which we've shown uh the the county the the city attorney, he's in substantial compliance. He's also began the process
of applying for permits. However, due to bureaucracy and red tape, it's taking a little longer than he expected. >> Okay. Um and are these are also foreclosure authorization hearings or no? Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. They are
>> okay. Um, I guess I'll need the town uh to enter in whatever evidence it wants. Let me know, I guess, if the continuence is being contested. >> That's up to you. >> Yeah. >> We ready to present? Yeah,
>> we're ready to move forward with the the case. This is um ongoing violations for considerable amount time. Um and while we were trying to work with the the violation,
um there has not been uh a submitted with respect to a 175 violation. Um, as you know, that generally requires the submittal of a permit. Um, so >> we'd like to move forward with the
>> foreclosure proceedings um and get authorization from your honor to foreclose on the property. >> What uh when were these before me last? >> They were here it was a month ago uh at
the first meeting in January. >> Okay. >> Um >> and who was here? was an attorney here for that. >> Yes, Mr. Rose was here and he um he agreed to the continuence to this date. Um so he was well aware.
Okay. I guess Miss Gman, if I go ahead and get I'd like to look at the case file because I do recall a gentleman being here, but there's been so many cases lately. I'm I just want to make sure I'm remembering the correct cases. So, if you can get on the record whatever you have in the way of notice for this morning's hearing, since the parties are
not in agreement, I'll need to look at the case files uh and enter get on the record also whatever evidence you want in terms of entry of the case files so that Miss Gman can look at it before I do. >> Would you stipulate to service in this case based on your appearance and the
previous notice? Same. Thank you. Can I see your case files, Miss Thomas? I see a picture of the posting of the prior order granting and continuence. Is the prior order in here? >> Should it be?
>> Should be. >> There's an order assessing fine. >> I hope >> I don't see it in here. the continuity on continu. >> I'm double checking, but I'm not seeing that. Can you grab them for all three?
Thank you. >> All three. >> Yes. >> And then I guess um if the town's desires to proceed with foreclosure authorization, I presume you want to get some testimony on the record as it relates to the statutory criteria that have to be met for me to give you a
foreclosure authorization. Yes. >> So go ahead whenever you're ready with that. If you want to start with the case number nine. And I guess before you begin with that, so Miss Gman, you know, these are foreclosure authorization
hearings, right? So these are not necessarily evidentiary hearings in the way that a typical violation or fine assessment hearing is. These are just there are three criteria in 162 that if they're met, these are almost ministerial hearings at this point. So
I'm I granted a continuance to the last hearing. I I'm not sure. Um you either I can either check the boxes that they meet the criteria or not. So I'm not sure that anything changes if I continue this another month. >> Well, I I just want to make clear that I do have pictures that everything has
been removed. that that portion has been done except for a shed that uh he's he's applying for a permit to rebuild and and and there was a lot of work done over the weekend. They inspected it Friday, but much much more work's been done and we do have pictures. >> Okay.
>> However, unfortunately, they're on my client's cell phone, so they can't be admitted. But I I do have the pictures in present. >> Okay. and the permit issuing. He's applied for that, but it's slow.
It's in the process. >> Well, yeah. >> Let me wait for Mr. Suarez to come back with the orders just so I can look at the prior order. And Mr. Dr. Kur, do you want to proceed with any testimony as it relates to the foreclosure authorization or do you want
to wait for Mr. Suarez to return? >> Um, we can move forward. >> Okay, go ahead whenever you're ready. >> Diana Thomas, uh, for the town of Lockxa Hatchi Groves code. Uh, this is regarding case number 2308006
at 3138 a road. Um the code sections were for code of ordinances 22-117 evidence of operating a business or profession and uldc uh 20-017 prohibited uses fines as follows for
foreclosure. The lean for the violations through today, February 2nd, 2026, have acred to 205,46855 and will continue to acrue at $250 per day for case number 20206131.
Again, property 3138 a road code section ULDC1 175-110 permit required. Fines as follows for foreclosure. The lean for the violation through February 2nd, 2026, which is today, have acrewed to $178,700
and will continue to acrue at $100 per day. Case number 2021-014 for property 3138A road. Code sections code of ordinance 22-135 engaging in business occupation etc
without a license penalty 45-010 duty to maintain property 15-015 setback exceptions 05-040
permits required expiration of permits and development ordersc-3 360 permanent placement 175-110 permits required fines as follows for foreclosure the lean for the violations
through today February 2nd 2026 have acred to $372,2345 and will continue to acrue at $250 per day. >> All right. And the statutory criteria, the leans have been recorded. What dates were they
recorded? The leans have been paid or they remain unpaid. >> They remain unpaid. They are recorded. Um, which I don't have the date here, but they're in the folder showing that they were recorded. Um, should have the print out up at the top
upper right top corner. >> And they've been pending for more than 90 days. >> Oh, yes, they have been pending for more than 90 days. All right, let me ask you, Miss Thomas, to show Miss Grossman the three case files that you're intending to enter. Um,
let's I guess for the sake of keeping the record as clean as we can, let's do these cases one at a time. Yeah. So, if you can show her that first case. So, she's going to show you that evidentiary case file. That's the the file that they are going to ask me to enter into the record. Take as much time
as you need to look through the documents and let me know if you have any objection to the paperwork being entered. Yeah, I looked through these before. >> You did? Okay. >> Yeah. >> And the only other thing I asked them to add, which you just heard, was the copies of the prior orders that I signed from the January hearing. So, that's what's not actually stuck in the folder,
but it's on the top there. Any objection to that case file? Okay. All right. And are these properties homestead? >> No, they are not. >> Okay. I guess it's the same property, right? >> Yes.
name address. Okay. So, this address is not Homestead. All right. All right. Anything further in the purse case 2308006. Anything further, Miss Gman, from you?
>> Nothing further. >> Okay. Anything further from the town? >> No. All right. In case 2308006, I'm going to enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit 1 without objection.
I'm going to have the order reflect that respondents council has stipulated to service for this morning's hearing. I'll also note for the record that uh Mr. Daniel Rose appeared at the prior hearing. So, uh there was actual notice of today's hearing as well.
because these are foreclosure uh authorization proceedings and as I explained to Miss Gman, these these there's nothing really evidentiary to object to if the statutory criteria are met. I'm I'm basically obligated to to grant that. Doesn't mean you can't work with them and continue to work with them because I understand what you're saying
is that you're working on the issues and you can't get complied and you can't get the fines paid until you have resolved the issues. But my authorization here this morning doesn't start the actual foreclosure. It just authorizes the town to proceed in the future. So you can continue to work with them if you're getting closer to compliance on uh the
issues. U but that that's unfortunately the risk of leaving. In this particular case, the lean was recorded in December of 2023. So this lean has been recorded for over two years. So um there's been ample time to get this resolved and paid. Uh so I'm going to proceed in in I
excuse me each of the three cases. um despite the request for continuence because I already gave one continuance and I I'm not sure that uh there's a need for a second continuance given the nature of these hearings. So with that, I'm going to find in this case that the uh prior order assessing fine which was
dated December 4th, 2023 and which was recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County on December 7, 2023 at book 34710, page 41. uh given that recording uh has persisted
for many more than 90 days and given the town's testimony that the uh lean remains unpaid, I'm going to grant the town's request for foreclosure authorization in this case and then we'll move to the next case. Miss Thomas, if I can ask you to show
her this case file. Let's see. This is points 010. Yeah, this one. Moving now to case 2020 06131. Same thing on that one. That's the evidentiary case file. The town's asking me to enter. Any objection to those
documents being entered? >> No objection. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. >> Anything further, Miss Grossman, on this case? >> Nothing further, judge. All right. Anything further from the town on this case? Uh, let me ask you to get on the record uh, the testimony about the lean status. I think Miss Thomas, you
testified previously, but can you just restate what you said? The orders were recorded. The order was recorded and the lean's been unpaid for 90 days. Is that accurate? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. In this case, uh, 20206131,
I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll again note uh that Miss Gman has stipulated to service for this morning's hearing. And I'll note again uh that Mr. Daniel Rose, council for respondent was present at the January hearing and had actual notice of today's
hearing as well. Again, in this case, the uh prior order assessing fine was dated May 17, 2021 and was recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County on July 11, 2024
at book 35134, page 1919. uh that that lean has been recorded for a period of more than 90 days and based on the testimony of town staff that the lean is uh remains unpaid. I'm going to and based on also the testimony of town staff that the neither this property in
neither of these cases is homesteaded. I'm going to grant this town's request for foreclosure authorization in this matter and I'll sign an order that reflects that. And then the final case, Miss Thomas, if you could show Miss Gman this case file as well. It's case 2021-014. Thank you.
Any objection, Miss Gman, to that case file? You want to take Do you want to look through that one? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And Miss Thomas, your testimony is the same in this case. Selines were recorded more than 90 days ago and the fine amounts remain outstanding. Is that
correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. In case 2021-014, I'm going to enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'm going to find u legally sufficient service based on again Miss Gman stipulation to service for today's
hearing as well as Mr. Daniel Rhodess's appearance at the January hearing uh having actual service. And in this case, the prior order assessing fine was dated December 4, 2023. The order was recorded
in the official records of Palm Beach County on December 7, 2023 at book 34710, page 41. And again based on that recording date which is more than 90 days as well as the testimony of the code enforcement officer that the lean has remained
unpaid and currently remains unpaid and again that the property is not homestead. I will again grant the foreclosure authorization in this matter as well. So you'll get three orders or your client will get three orders uh of that in the mail. Okay, Miss Gman. >> Understood.
>> Thank you ma'am. >> Can I something? >> You can go ahead. >> Okay. Um >> can you come to the podium sir and give me your name >> and in the future sir please raise your hand >> okay >> whenever you want to speak tell me you want to speak but go ahead >> yeah my name is uh video
>> darti >> um I don't have much idea before how this thing work that's why I'm working with the lawyer right now uh before you I came here like two or three times I I don't understand too much about this thing but now I want to do everything
right I talk to her. That's why I'm working with the lawyer because I want to do everything on the right way. So like I say before I don't have any idea how this thing work but now I'm working with a lawyer to do everything right. So
that's what I'm doing right now. So I understand we here like a month ago and um this month I'm just working on cleaning my property. My niece is now my niece is working with me. She helped me with the permits, but uh I think she
talked with a lady char the permits here or something like that. >> Okay. >> But um she's doing everything to do a property homestead uh to apply for the tax receipt and everything. But this month I ruin it like a crazy. So
>> yeah. So keep doing that. I appreciate that testimony. And as I explained to your attorney, this is is this hearing today? So last month was the same thing but I granted a continuance and gave you gave you more time. >> Like I say before I don't have any attorney so I don't know anything about this thing but now
working with the attorney and my niece. >> Keep doing that. Yeah. Keep keep doing that because what what I'm what I told your attorney is that this is really just a ministerial hearing. The statute says that certain things have to occur and then I can grant them forclosure authorization. >> Pride in him because they they went to
my property and like I say I want to do everything right. I think my English is not perfect. But I understand. >> Well, keep working with your attorney and keep working with the town because this is just a kind of a paperwork exercise, but it does authorize the town to proceed with foreclosing on your property. So, you should continue to work as diligently as you can to get out
of code enforcement trouble, >> right? So that they don't start foreclosure >> number. >> Explain all that to him because this this is the first step. >> So, we working together. So, now we have a straight communications. So, like >> that's perfect. keep doing that and and
hopefully you'll get it resolved and you'll be out of this. >> Me is better because before I don't have like I said I had too much idea what I had to do all these things but uh now >> you're going in the right direction. All right. >> Thank you. >> Good luck sir. Thank you. All right. Where to now?
>> Jeff you want to do that first? And yes, if we have a very quick break on BD is the last. >> Sure. >> We'll take a two-minute recess at 9:46. There still.
which case are we going to >> uh case number four Thomas N uh and Sheila Waznjak. The address of the property is 14090 North Road. Uh PCN number 41414317
014290020. Um it is case number C2547. Is that correct? Um and alleged violations of ULDC uh section 70-015
maintenance of swailes and culberts. Um and code of ordinances 30-7 eminent public health threat uh 30-1 >> uh subsection 4. >> So case
>> morning your honor. John Suarez on the for the town logic girls presenting case C2547 reference of the property at 14090 North Road. Uh when in regards to service notice violation notice of hearing was posted on the property on December 2nd,
2025 on the same day we mailed it certified mail via the property owner in Palm Beach County property appraiser. Uh copy order was also posted on at town hall on the same day. Um at this moment this was a order resetting the violation
hearing. Don't mind letting the attorney speak at this time. >> And when was that reset from? from December 1st, 2025. >> Okay. So, what you just So, you didn't issue a notice of violation notice of hearing on December 2nd. You sent the >> Oh, I'm sorry. I sent the order
reciting. >> Okay. Very good. And you also sent that order of certified mail. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> So, you can go forward the violation here, right? At this time, um, the is requ days to apply for all necessary permits
and 60 days for permit issuance. The town is requesting a fine of $250 a day per violation. >> Hold on one second though. >> Yeah, I didn't hear any testimony last month. It was just a continuence, right, whenever it would reset. So, I need all your testimony about what the violation is, when you observed it, everything.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. It's uh I believe I believe we did argue it, Mr. Uh the public works superintendent Craig argued about the covert. >> There was no there was no ruling. I don't believe >> there was no ruling though. >> So going to go back over the testimony.
>> So there is a culvert under the road that was blown out. At this time the town would like uh Craig lower to explain. >> Ma'am, can you swear me in? >> Yes. And are you you have a microphone? Raise your right hand for me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Thank you. and state your name for the record. >> Craig Lawer, Panelox Grove, PO work superintendent. >> Um, so we received multiple calls that there was a wash out on the side of this canal bank on this roadside. >> Mr. Low, if you could refer to the
screen and identify for the special m magistrate what property we are talking about. >> We're talking about this property here, ma'am. >> Okay. There is a drainage ditch for the property that comes out alongside the east side of their property. There's a pipe that crosses a roadway right here
where you see the mouse at the property owner was claiming that the FPNL had bored through their pipe and it collapsed the pipe. As the town went over, we went to go check it out because we were dealing with it and the roadside of the property
of that right in front of the property was collapsing from the covert pipe collapse. We hand dug down there trying to view the pipe. As we kept trying to dig back to see if we can help fix the pipe, it just kept collapsing more and
more and more. The top of the pipe was completely rusted out. To ensure the safety of the roadway, we had to put dirt back over there and to safe up the roadside. >> Okay. So, the pipe that you're saying goes from where your furs is up to the into the canal. Is that
>> correct? >> Underneath the road. >> There's a pipe underneath the roadway right there. >> Okay. >> Um at that point, it became a safety issue for the town, for the roadway. Code enforcement was involved to issue their code case into it for them to get
to replace the pipe. At one point there was a phone call made by Mr. Waznjak. He had called me late at or I think it was 7 8:00 at night. Then I got received a phone call from the Palm Beach County EOC as well saying that the whole roadway was was washed
out. Um we went out there at 9 10:00 at night. I the roadway had been completely blown out. We had to dig up the road and replace the whole roadway at 9 10:00 at night. There's pictures in the case as well that was presented from us being there.
>> Okay. >> Anything further from you, Mr. Low? >> No, ma'am. >> Um, have you had a chance to take a look at the code >> and your name again, ma'am? >> Spell your last name for me. C H L U S K I.
>> Okay. And you have a you have the case file there. So take as much time as you need to review that. And at the end, let me know if you have any objection to that being entered into the record. Start with the >> let me know if you have any objection to any of the documents being entered into the record.
But it's stated. Where did you get it? The 28th of October. Okay. So that's the service list. actually pictures from We were here last time and there were some pictures that we submitted from like around May of 2025 showing some
work that was done. >> It was their picture. >> There were pictures that were in here last time from May that we're not seeing in here. >> We're supposed to get those >> immediately. You said we were supposed to get everything was in this file that
day and we've never gotten up. >> All right. We did a subsequent >> Yeah. I don't I can't ever. Just so everybody's clear, I can never mandate that they give you files from here. I don't have that authority, but you can do a public records request, which is what I probably presume you did. And you got
>> told us we were going to have that day because I specifically asked you. They brought out pictures of some of these pictures here. But there's three pictures that were there that were dated May 22nd when it was dug up the first time by the town. >> Okay. >> They're not here.
>> Okay. So, we'll get to that. So, any objection to the documents that are in the case file being entered and then we'll get to why. >> Um, no, because we're want to discuss each of them. So, um, no, we'd just like to point out some of the dates on the
missing ones. Um, we never received I'd also like to point out um that there's an internal email in here patching documents um that we would like to discuss and um
whatever that we're reviewing it now. No, we don't have any objection. Sorry. Okay. I just not >> No, I appreciate that. We would offer the file and evidence. So, let let me just take a look through here before we get too much there. Hold on. Just one sec.
December and speak for and how do you say your last name, ma'am? Is it Kluskkey? Okay. Do you have any cross-examination of Mr. Lowour or of uh Mr. Suarez? >> Sure. >> Um Mr. Lowour, what date who when were
these multiple calls regarding a wash out? When were they made? When were they made? It was observation from my myself and my u public works at actual um employees. >> Okay. So >> from from the previous from when we
initially went to the property we had I drove by seen there was a wash out in the roadway. >> So what when you say multiple call multiple calls about a wash out there was no multiple calls. There was >> from my employees there was calls from them >> and then reports
>> when were those calls made? I don't know off the top of my head, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, so when did you do the canal work on a property a piece of property uh just
north of my client's property across the canal? Right. North. I'm going the right direction. >> So, >> on the canal side of the road on this area, when did you do work there?
I don't have the exact date on it. >> We were there. Um, we dug it up by hand to check the property to check the pipe. >> I don't have an exact date on it. >> What was that? Would would if we said May, would that be fair? >> I can't tell you that. I don't know.
>> So, I want to show you a photo of These are three photos of the property. Show your attorney first. This is before May of 2025. Are you going to offer them to Mr. Lowry to identify
that it is the same property? >> Mr. Herz, do you have any objection to those documents? Um, I don't have any objections to the pictures subject to some verification by a witness that they are of the relevant property. Okay.
>> Are they familiar with that photo or that property? >> There's three separate photos in that package. Yeah, it looks like it's a property. >> It's a sub property, right? And that's 2025. That's before the public works activity began, correct?
>> Correct. >> And everything's there's a culvert there and it's working properly. No, that's that's from us putting dirt on top of it because there's a hole in the road. There's no actual visual picture of you can see where the hole is in the road right here where it is
starting to collapse on the roadside. You can see there's a hole there, but there is no actual hole in the roadside that you cannot see because you only took pictures up here. But right here on the roadside, there's a hole there, but you cannot see in the picture. >> Correct. from the wash out going
straight down from the pipe collapsing internally >> formationally. >> Couldn't tell you. I don't know that exact date. There's no time stamp on that picture. >> There's no time. >> Yeah, let's mark it as R2 if you could.
>> R2. >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you. Sorry, let me just get a minute to organize. Go ahead. Play on space. And then after public works specific. Okay. So then after you on May 2025
there was a something in the road and you there was work done by city of Lockahhatchee. Correct. >> Oh objection to the pred there's no predicate that it was May 2025. The only person that has indicated that anything occurred in May
definitively was uh the attorney. She's not testifying. >> Well, it the witness agreed um that that would be fair. There's no records. >> Yeah, she's cross-examining. So, I'm going to allow it. Go ahead, Mr. Lowry. Go ahead and answer the question that
she's posed. >> Re ahead again. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. Okay. So, um, prior to there was So, prior in May 2025, you did work on that road.
Correct. Is that correct? So, are you looking at your phone? >> I was actually pulling up a a picture of the hole in the road as the Google maps shows. So, go ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry. >> So, you did work on the road in May of 2025
approximately. you keep bring up 2025. I can't say yes or no to that. As >> the city of Lockxahhatchee superintendent of director, how do you keep records of what you do in any given day? >> Because we keep daily logs and at that point in time, that daily log at that is
past its date for our records requests as records. >> Okay. So, a daily log. So, you keep a daily log of your records. >> Yes, my guys do. >> Okay. Do you keep that log? >> They get put into a daily log into a worksheet. And you have not reviewed your daily
logs with respect to this case to try to >> they have because they're past their date. They they no longer exist. They're past the date >> less than a year ago. >> Yeah. >> So what is the policy of how long the city of Luxahhatche superintendent maintains records of what he does on any given day and his employees for how
long? What is what is the policy? >> Then the response is already put to you with the town clerk when you guys were formed for the records request on it. >> How and how long do you keep record maintain records for >> for those? It's I think it's past a certain date. I couldn't tell you exactly because that's what I was told.
>> What? You just said you were the superintendent and you maintain those records. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, when how long do you keep your records for? >> I don't have an exact date on it. >> So, isn't there a requirement under Sunshine Law to maintain records so that we can when disputes like this arise that we can look at our record, your records,
>> but let let me let me just be clear with what the scope of this is. You're you're going down a road that is okay. >> Not relevant to the code enforcement proceeding before me. I understand your argument, but I don't think that the forum is appropriate for that that cross-examination type. So, I would ask you to limit your questions to to the
material that's before me because that that may be a whole separate thing, but that is not before me. What's before me is the code enforcement matter which alleges that there is a covert uh lack of maintenance of the covert which caused an imminent threat. So, go ahead with your cross-examination, but just keep in mind where we are. Uh
>> so, you're okay. So, you're saying there's a violation there. What? In the violation notice that you sent, it was an imminent public threat. Is that correct? Did you send it? >> I didn't send it. That would be code that sent that. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Um, keeping with you for a little
bit. You might want to bounce back. >> So, when did you you It was you who called code enforcement to say to tell them to make a violation there. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And when was that? >> Should be in their document in the code
case. It was sent in an email to them. >> You sent emails and it's not is that email part of the record? >> It's not in the It's not in the room. >> It is part of the record. I If it's not
in the code case, I could print it out. Are you aware that we did made a public records request for this case and asking follow emails all records regarding this this property and we received 41 pages which is basically a only a copy of what um
is in the actual file right now. I'm going to show you the one mark that insurance. >> Yeah. Okay. So, in response to this email regarding the Yes.
What's up? All right. No, not ask me a question. Do you need Does he need a break? Do you need a >> Sorry, my >> All right, I'll take a two-minute recess, sir. Go ahead. 10:15.
going to I think everything else you have to talk with It's the spirit. that one. >> Yeah, that's what we want. >> Go ahead and wait. Mr. Suarez left, so let me give him another minute to come
back and I'll reconvene when everybody's back in the room. Now we've lost the attorneys. We'll continue to recess until you come back. No, sir. Wait till we reconvene and then I'll I'll come to you.
Yes, ma'am. Let's reconvene at uh 10:23. >> Laura, I'm just going to show you this document. It is what we received in response to a request for Freedom of Information. It's the Freedom of Information request and that's the response that we got in the chain of emails. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um and it asks for work like any
work from a certain period of time. I'll just read it to you. It asked for more any work records from April 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2025. And no records were received with regard to any work by you filling a hole at that time. >> Is that correct? You want to look at
this to refresh your recollection or do you understand, >> Jeff? I've never seen this, but I just ask does it show any calls >> or work job for filling holes in the road? >> No, ma'am. I
wouldn't get a record on that. >> All right. So, you want to enter those in the record? All right. So, >> this is >> That's all right. I can mark it. You're fine. It's fine. >> Yep. All right. >> Um,
so the date of the violation that was sent to my >> and let me before you begin, let me just make sure. Uh, no objection to R3 and R4 being entered. Is that correct? >> Thank you, sir. Go ahead, ma'am. >> So on the date of the
violation to my client was, what was the date? You remember? told me the case to look at the exact date, >> but it was you after your house morning. You say that you the road washed out and
then you direct. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. The road had wash outs and had holes in it and we contacted after I spoke with the Mr. Wnak. Um are you So the date of the violation
is 10:28 2025. Okay. And um that's in the court file. It's in the file. All right. Um are you aware that the wash out actually occurred November 6th? >> There was no wash out. You were not
called for any the road being washed out until after not and that was when they were trying to comply. So, >> no ma'am, that was not correct. >> Okay. Um, but you >> I had spoke to Mr. Waznjak in person before they were actually the code case was put in. >> I'm sorry.
>> I had spoke to Mr. Waznjak in person before the code case was called in. >> On spoke >> I couldn't tell you. I had spoke to the gentleman at his gate at his property face to face. We both spoke. >> Is there any record of that in the file?
>> Are you Did you So, let's go over a little bit back step. to the violation. Did you ever give them a warning letter pursuant to uh Florida statute 162.21 to official warning before this if the violation was occurred? >> That would not come from me. That would
come from code would send a notice of >> I'm sorry. >> The warning would not come from me. >> Okay. Was a warning set on this property sent on this property? >> You've been speaking to them, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. So the initial notice was a notice violation notice of hearing
>> and but there was no original pre pre violation notice um warning as per 162.21. Are you aware that prior to issuing a warning you're supposed to issue prior to issuing a notice of violation you're supposed to issue a warning? >> There was nothing prior but this is a life health safety issue. So there was
no warning in regards to that. So we went straight to notice of violation notice appearing with a theory >> pursuant to um the code of ordinances for this town of Black Sahhatche. Are you aware that the only person who is a eligible to list
and describe an emergency or a public health threat is the town manager? >> The town manager is aware of the situation. Did they sign off on this and and issue the violation as per the ordinance requirements?
>> It was assigned. >> So um so this notice of violation seeks to um have my client what are they supposed to do? What is the how what is their path to compliance pursuant to the notice? >> To repair the cover through our
permitting process. >> Okay. Where does it say to prepare the repair through the permitting process? in the violation. >> Can you read the language that says corrective? Okay. One of the correctives is a repair or
replace the cover and disrepair. >> Say again. >> Repair or replace the covert and disrepair. >> Or replace the cover and disrepair. And then so when my clients attempted to do that um and then at the last hearing there was, you know, we've received all
this information for the first time regarding a right-of-way agreement. Is that correct? And how to They needed to file a permit. Is that accurate, >> Mr. L? Look, Mr. Craig, did you inform
them they needed a rightaway permit? >> Was there at the last hearing? We received information that my clients needed to fill out a permit application and a right-of-way agreement and we asked for copies of that at last and that's why the basis of the continuence that the first time they were told that
was that last hearing. Is that correct? >> I believe that is correct. >> And then how was my client supposed to be able to be in compliance prior to this meeting if they weren't re hadn't received those documentation and this right away agreement? Were they would they would be able to comply?
they would have to apply through the town through the permitting department >> and if you look at those documentation that we received at the December 1st hearing for the first time um there's a lot of things that they need to do for the rightway permit and there's a lot of things the city needs to do as well is that correct >> it's correct
>> have you received have you sent us any of the applica of those documentation as you received >> I did not send permit though >> there is a little okay um did anybody copies of what needs how do they become in compliance?
>> I mean it goes through a communication with the town. >> Okay. And then in that communication for the town there's a um and in the case file there's an email um between you and can I see the case file? Do you have that? >> Yep.
show you the email between there's an email between a Terara Bamber and permits Deanna Thomas Craig Irwin um and in that email she say please review the information by comments or send to property owner please check
application time I think we need about one week Um and in this document document this email here it's double it so it's a little but it's in that email
>> is Miss Vamber is stating that the the whole cover needs to be replaced correct and not repaired. >> I have to I'd have to review the docu the email once again. In the email it states what is needed for the permit
>> and our permit technicians were to replace it. Correct. >> Yes. >> So the only path to compliance with is the city sound's position at this point is it has to be replaced and it cannot be repaired. Correct.
>> Is that correct? >> According to Terara's email, >> which we were told we should be correct, >> but through the permitting process, I mean, it would be more thorough. >> And then we were told we asked to see the the rightway agreement as well. Is that correct? And we were told we
received it, but have there's no rightway agreement within that file, is there? I do not see a rightaway agreement. >> Is there a picture of a pole in the road that Mr. Lower needed to fix and when he any when he spotted this um this uh
covert in disrepair allegedly? >> I'm sorry, a hole in the road. Yeah. >> Is there any photos of holes in the road? When you mean holes in the road, just the drivable road. The pictures I have is because he did an
overnight repair, like a late evening repair. I >> Who's he? >> Uh, Mr. Craig Lower in the public works. >> Which one? Which photos are that? The one dated at November 7th, 2025. >> That's not But that's not a hole in the
road. That's and that's after >> that's after his crew the public works crew repaired it. >> Okay. Is there a Can you see the culvert there? >> I cannot see. Appears to be covered in dirt. November covered the culbert. Correct.
>> I'm sorry. >> The culvert's not visible >> in this picture. No. by the city of Lockahhatching or town. Sorry >> before the repair you can see the culvert after see appears to be covered in dirt when the when the town repaired it.
>> Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. I apologize. >> So it's our contention that that covert was covered by this town in May 20 on May 22nd 2025. Are you aware of that? I'm not aware. Upon initial inspection,
I could see the culverts. I don't see a picture of the of the culvert, but >> working with Craig. >> In response to the notice of violation, my client sent to the town a homeowner's
respondent statement of law and a homeowner's declaration of facts. in response to notice of violation. Is that contained within the file? >> Sorry, repeat the uh >> homeowner's declaration of facts in response to notice of violation and
homeowners respondent statement of law. I don't see it in the case file. Do >> you recall seeing it last hearing? Cuz we submitted last hearing and for some reason it's not in the case file. Do you know what happened to it? >> Is that the uh blue folder you handed to us?
>> Yes. >> Um it's in the office. what taken as when we left that hearing on back in December, it was going to become part of the the case file. That was the intention. >> Um,
um, here's the two things that we submitted. What was the documents that are previously submitted or you need to go get your file to confirm that No, these are these photographs are additional to
the ones that are in the file, are they not? What the Hang on. Is this the blue folder? Just >> I got >> that appears to have some additional photographs. I'm not sure that you
supplied those or not. >> Those were supplied So, this is I think this is a duplicate of what you're you're looking at. >> All right. >> Okay. So
there there was an intention on your part um and perhaps some corroboration by the staff that this file would be um made part of the file. But as I
understand it, there wasn't a private previous um hearing. everything had been continued and so the special magistrate had not had a chance to accept these documents. Is that correct? >> Well, we thought could be part of the
record. I can make it for the record now. I'm read >> that's what I Yeah. >> And this this duplicate of something I think that one contains this is to one and we submitted this in advance of the hearing on December. >> Yes. Okay. So also in the previous hearing he
listed out all the material within that folder. >> Who's he hearing? I was >> added to the game. >> Okay. >> Does it the intent you want your the blue folder the order the prior order
>> separately not do you want it to be placed in the record? I don't have an objection to >> Okay. Yes, please. And is are the previous documents that you entered are they part of it or >> Yes, I think some of them are. >> All right. So, what I'm going to do is
I'm just going to mark this as R5. I'm going to leave these separate because I've already entered them. I'm going to mark this as R5. Any objection, Mr. Cart being R5 and I'll enter this I'm going to All right. All right. So with that, let's just have the record be clear that I've now
entered uh respondents composite exhibit R5 into the record without objection, >> your magistrate. >> I'll do it later. >> All right. So can you continue with your cross examination? Yes. Um so
>> the last hearing also there was additional photos brought in and one was what was the date on that? the missing one that we can't find. >> There was like a date on a photo. Do you recall a miss a photo being removed from the file at all from back in May?
>> No, these are additional number. So, and our um just to conclude quickly, so our position, if you know, is that you know, you guys covered the covert in May of 2025 and destroyed it um by doing
so and shoved rocks in there while doing word work and canal work. Um, and then therefore, you know, you created, you damage someone's property. Um, and it's not my client's responsibility. Um, are you aware that that's aren't my client's defense?
>> I'm not aware that that's your client's defense. >> And what about you, Mr. L? >> Second what he just said. >> I'm sorry. >> I I I didn't know that was your client's defense on that. You don't know or you said you plead the fifth. What? I'm sorry. Did you say that?
>> You just asked me if I understood that that was your client's defense. I said I did not understand that. That was his defense. >> And then when I submitted the the homeowner's response to the notice of violation, did you review them? >> No, ma'am. Those were given a code to be put in the code case. They were not to
me, >> but they weren't. Is that That's the point, too. Correct. Did you were you aware of that? that um before we So, did you ever read those before prior
to today or see those prior to today? >> No, ma'am. I've never seen these before. >> And they didn't make it their way to the court. The clerk the court file even though they're respond they were filed in response. Correct. >> Yeah. I couldn't tell you whether these were never presented to me. I've never seen these before. First time.
in the court file. Just want to make sure that there's a request for copies of the rightway agreement and dated December 11, 205. Is that correct? for my >> and your honor, you know, do you have
any objection if I even though they're in the blue packet if I make mark these separately the response or do you think it's unnecessary? >> You can um >> I just want to point out because it's >> Yeah, that's fine. If you need to help the homeowners declaration is in there.
What's the other one? >> And there's a statement of law. >> Yep, they're both in there. You're going back to Mr. Suarez now. >> Yeah, he's just been doing a letter dated from my office is dated December 11th following up on, you know, trying
to obtain information and how to be in compliance. letter you're referring to is a letter that that was sent to me, >> right? It's in the case files. >> Yeah. Um and it talked about resolution of the
the case and allegation that there had been work done by the public works department in May. >> Correct. And it's seeking a copy of a rightaway agreement and a definition of illegal and following up on how to gain
compliance. >> What was your question? >> Well, just saying that's that letter's in there, correct? Seeking seeking a path to compliance. Is there a response a written response in the for? No. Okay. I lines for cross right now but I would I have my own presentation for my
>> absolutely yeah so Mr. >> do redirect at this point in time. >> Yes sir. Please. >> Okay. >> Um I think I'll start with uh Mr. hour and let's see if we can clear up the time
frames on this issue. Um, if we could go back up and put that uh the popup presentation. Okay, that
that's the respondent's property there. Um, and I think he testified earlier that on the uh north eastern corner there is a or there was a covert pipe. >> Correct.
>> Correct. Okay. And when did you first become aware of that cover pipe and whether or not there were any problems associated? I couldn't tell the exact date, but it was upon time of me driving by it and seeing that there was a hole in the road
and seeing the embankment was starting to wash out. >> Okay. At what point in time did you contact code and alert them to the situation? >> I want to believe it was in October.
>> Had you spoken to the property owners prior to speaking to code about the situation? >> Yes, sir. Spoke to Mr. Waznjak and his son. Oh, good. And on October 28th, we've heard that
there was a uh notice of violation sent to or um filed by the code enforcement staff. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay.
on October 28th, the culbert, which is a pipe in the ground. Correct. >> Correct. >> That that pipe was still in the ground on October 28th. >> Yes, it was still in the ground.
>> Okay. Um and you had identified that it was in disrepair. >> Correct. Could you state specifically what the nature of the disrepair was? >> The um top corner of the pipe was
completely rusted out. Um it was collapsing from the top down. >> Do you have any idea how old that pipe was? >> No idea. >> Is it unusual for old pipes to eventually wear out and rust out? It's
very common for over a long period of time of pipe being in the ground rust out and collapse. >> And that pipe that's that was in the ground um that was benefiting uh the respondent's property. Correct. >> Correct.
>> All right. What was his function? >> Drainage of his property. >> Okay. >> Of the drain line going through directly through his property. Um, and in your discussions with the respondent,
um, prior to the issuance of the notice of the violation, did the respondent indicate, uh, that they were aware of that culbert pipe? >> Correct. They were. >> And did they believe that culbert pipe was their culbert pipe?
>> Yes, they they knew it was theirs. Did you talk to them about the possibility of replacing that culbert pipe? >> Yes, I talked to them about the town replacing it for them. >> Why would the town have replaced it for him? >> Because it was a safety issue to the town and the roadway.
>> Yeah. Um, and did they take you up on that offer? >> No, it was turned down. >> You notified code of the situation, correct? >> Yes, sir. code issued a notice of violation on
October 28th. >> Yes. >> When did the pipe blow out? Um the initial blowout is right there on for when the town had
came out for the overnight. I believe it's on the November right there where they where they had admitted saying they pushed water through the pipe and it washed the entire roadway out. Who admitted that? >> Mr. Waznjak. >> And how did you become aware of that
admission? >> He had called me and I received a phone call from the Palm Beach County EOC and the EOC said that he was pumping he admitted to pumping water through the pipe and that's what blew the roadway out and washed it out. >> And you had a direct conversation with
Mr. WNY. >> Yes. It stated actually in her her one uh file she reported that he had called me that night. All right. No objection to those additional photographs being entered.
>> Yeah. Before I submit them, I would like uh Mr. Low to just go through them quickly >> um and identify for the record what they are. >> And first of all, Mr. uh Lowren, those
those pictures were taken when >> November 6, 2025 at 9:28. >> And all these pictures are date stamped with the particular time the pictures were taken. >> Correct. From me. Okay. And so they show
a sequence of the situation that you found on November 6th to the ultimate repair. >> Correct. >> Okay. You could go through them real quickly. Tell us what we would see. >> So on picture right here, this one
exactly shows where the wash out is. And this is the cave, the cavity completely. >> Can you see this? Hold on. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Show it so she can see it too. Yep. So this picture right here does show the wash out, but this is the cavity completely underneath the roadway that
was washed out from the water pushing this way. That is the reason why we had to dig up the road here because this would have collapsed that I actually have a flashlight shining down inside the hole going all the way back behind the roadway behind the canal bank into
the road going all the way back to to the property line. for the reason of this right here. So for >> the reason of this right here, I'm sorry. >> This this that the reason of digging up the roadway shown in this picture right here was because that cavity underneath
the roadway, the cave that you seen that I just showed you was all the way across the whole road. >> Depict a cave. >> Huh? >> That doesn't depict a cave. >> This does right here, ma'am. >> This hole right here went all the way back across. So the road would >> be like if we could Yes. It was a tunnel
roadway if we could >> like a tunnel under the roadway. >> It was a tunnel completely underneath the roadway. Washed >> out. Okay. >> Yeah. But the road would have collapsed completely. >> So the picture that you're saying shows the cave is one that is at 9:32
uh and 20 seconds. >> That's in the PM. And the picture of the work that was done across the roadway um is at 937-47. >> Yes. If we could keep these in order.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. No problem. >> Yes. The rest of the picture shows that the town staff adding material to the roadway to fill in the hole because there all the material that was in the roadway is washed out into the canal.
>> What time is that? >> That's all here. 9:49 9:50. >> This is all of this is our time out there until we were there till 10:30 at night repairing the roadway.
So, you're out there for a couple hours, >> correct? >> And um what happened to the culbert? >> Covert was was gone. It was completely collapsed. >> So, you were you and your staff removed
the culvert? >> No, we did not remove the culbert. It's still underground. >> It's still underground >> where it was collapsed out completely. >> Okay. So, it's nonfunctioning at this point in time. 100%. It was non-functioning before this
actual event. And can I have the regular case file back, please? And no objection to these photographs. Correct, ma'am. >> Correct. Yes. >> Thank you. >> I don't know why I'm having such a hard time with your last name, but I don't want to mess it up. >> Everybody does. We named my daughter
Chloe CHL because so Chloe >> to help people. I guess >> she wrote a report about how it doesn't work. >> All right, Mr. Curts, go ahead with uh any continued redirect. So, uh, before you do that, let me just
mark, um, I'm going to mark these as composite exhibit T2. And I'm gonna add these to the case file. These additional one, two, three, four, five, six,
8, 9, 10, 11, no, 12, 13, 14, 17 additional photographs are going to be marked composite exhibit T2 and I'll enter those into the case file now without objection. Uh, >> no still hour in a minute.
in order to repair the culbert pipe on October 28th or repair the culbert pipe repair and replace the culbert pipe now. What would one need to do
um from a construction standpoint? You would have to dig the whole road up. You'd have to pull locates for the FPNL for all them. Um the whole roadway would have to be dug up. His fence would, you
know, would have to be temporarily removed so that you can attach the pipe, you know, put the pipe back into his original drainage line that comes off of his property. >> And the pipes come pre-manufactured. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> It would take two two sticks of pipe.
>> And by sticks, what do you have? two 20 foot um pieces from the actual dealer. >> Um >> two >> and those and and then there's a connection made between >> Yes, there is a male and female end to joint them together. >> Okay. Now, from a permitting standpoint,
what would the property owner have to to do? >> They would have to come down the town hall and apply for a permit through the permitting department for a rideway permit >> for crossing the town's rightway. So the reference to a right-of-way agreement,
is it more properly characterized as a right-of-way permit application? >> Yes. >> Um and that application uh how is it reviewed within the um the
town's hierarchy? How does that happen? they apply for the permit. The permit would go through the permitting department and then as of the rightway going through it would come either through myself or the um engineering firm. >> Okay.
And there has been no application submitted um either prior to or after October 28th um for Culbert. >> That is correct. >> At this location. All right. Um,
in order to submit a rightaway permit for a covered pipe, is there any engineering work that needs to be done on the part of the applicant? >> Yes, sir. There's engineering work so that the pipe is put at the right elevation
>> and that's the obligation of the property owner. >> Correct, sir. Um the citation that was given on October 28th
uh indicated that there was a life health safety issue. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. Correct. What was that? What was the concern of the town at that point in time? >> The concern was that the roadway was
going to eventually wash out and a car would go into the canal. >> Okay. >> Or a vehicle. >> And did the roadway wash out? >> Yes. >> How many days later from October 28th?
>> Um, it's stated on there with the November on the pictures. >> That's the a matter of a little over a week. Correct. >> Correct. It was just over a week. >> Does that sound like it was eminent failure on your part?
>> Yes, sir. >> I don't have any further redirect. >> All right. So with that, we'll end the crossexamination portion of this hearing. I have a couple questions, but let me ask the parties. Uh, is there any you've
the town's called all its witnesses. Is there any further uh statements that the town would like like to make? >> Um, I would like to uh cross-examine um the Wnjaks with respect to their
homeowner statement, that hearsay statement that was entered in. Um uh and but I heard from uh defense council that she was going to present a case. So >> that's what I want to give you an opportunity to give any more presentation and I'm going to turn it over to her. So
>> no I don't have anything at this point. >> Turn it over to her. Okay. Go ahead. >> You know procedurally you know before I turn it over to my case chief I would like to point out that perhaps like this notice violation should be um dismissed at this time because they failed this city has failed to meet its burden. Um, number one, you know, there's been no
record of any existing um as what what it looks like today. Is there water flowing through it? Um, number two, we did point out legally deficient uh aspects with the notice of violation, namely that um the town attorney, I mean the town manager did not sign off on the imminent threat. Um, and that's a
statute, if you read through our response, that's a statute that really allows the city to go in or town or the municipality could go in and create like fix this nuisance or fix this imminent threat themselves. It's not a maintenance duty. Um, they've no so at
this point they're really traveling under failure to repair this covert um only and not chap which is chapter 70. And in that enforcement aspect, they were required to pre-warn my client in writing and that's pursuant to Florida
statute 162. >> So explain that to me. >> So Florida statute 16.21D uh and I have a copy of it. Um if you need for your your honor ma'am uh is that basically um
see actually subse citation a code enforcement officer shall provide notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code ordinance and shall establish a reasonable time within which person must correct the violation. Such time sh period should be no longer than 30 days. If on private personal investigation, a
code enforcement officer finds that the person has not corrected the violation within that time period, a code enforcement officer may issue a citation to the person who has committed the violation. Um, and it goes on. I can give you a copy of statute 162.21 and that's subsection C for the court file.
Um please any Open. >> Objection. and it's state law so even if we all had any objection it doesn't matter anyways so >> I want to make sure I didn't
>> No I appreciate that go ahead >> um so yeah so I mean there's some procedural issues you know the lack of notice um the mixing of statute ordinances 20 chapter 30 and 70 I think it's shown that you know chapter 30 um
didn't you know the town manager has a duty to declare the emergency and that wasn't done Um, so you know, at this point, I mean, I think we could move to dismiss it without going into the merits and defending on ourselves just on a procedural level. And if you'd like, you know, if not, I'd like to I can proceed
if you do not agree. >> Time to read. I have confidence that ordinance is also if you need those. >> Sorry. Go ahead. violation. The lack of cure or attempts to try to cure have been noted throughout the court file and not
reciprocally. >> So this this is the civil citation section of the statute, is it not? >> Right. >> So you were not issued a civil citation. you are notice of violation. I think this >> the violation itself states no the notice of violation that it's controlled by 162 chapter 162. Um
>> it is but why isn't it controlled by 162.09 >> courtesy notices are not required by state law. This this language is speaking to a civil citation which is would be issued by a police officer or by a code enforcement officer but it's an actual civil citation. There's no record in this case of a civil citation
being issued. Is that accurate? Okay. So, code enforcement courtesy notices are not required by state law unless somebody can can prove to me this morning otherwise. And I would find that highly unlikely given a number of these hearings that I both prosecute and sit up here. Um, I'm not aware of that. So,
unless something has changed recently, I don't believe that this is applicable. Um, this is for you actually giving getting a civil citation and having to pay a monetary fine. Um, >> moreover, if I might, your honor, >> this seeks to do to have him fight a
fine. >> Moreover, your honor, um the notice of violation and notice of hearing uh does give the um respondents
uh time to comply. Um the violation, there's a compliance date in the notice of violation. It says the violations must be corrected on or before November 10th, 2025. >> Yeah, that I don't think is in dispute. I think she she was asking me to dismiss based on there not having been a
courtesy notice. And I I'm yeah, >> I'm going to deny that portion of your request just because that's not applicable here um as my understanding of how this tracked. It was just a standard >> code enforcement violation which a courtesy notice is not required for. But that aside, um go ahead and continue.
>> Okay. Okay. So, for the imminent public health threat, um, and that's cited in the notice of violation itself, section 37A, uh, the town manager shall determine whether under the fing of this article an imminent public health exists, though, and that wasn't done in this
case. Um, it wasn't done in this case. And they're traveling under this imminent public health threat. Um, at this point, there's none. They fixed the road. There's no duty to maintain the road by my client. Um, you know, the timestamp pictures that they've showed shows a road that needed to be maintained in the
court file. Also, there's this letter from Miss Bamber basically stating, "Hey, there's a lot of canal work and street work and um too there's too much stuff in in the road and here she's basically this is a public works issue. Maintain and repair a culvert, you know, not the same thing. My client should not
be um engaged in, you know, road repair work to maintain his culvert. you know, it's not it's an im anyway. So, I I just don't think they're traveling under the right statute at this point or ordinance. >> Okay. >> And it's really hampered my client's
ability to comply. All right. So, I've heard enough testimony. I'm I'm not going to grant any motions to dismiss outright. I'm I'm going to make a ruling based on what I've heard because there's been substantial evidence in in the record here this morning. Um, so I'm I'm going to deny
your requests just for outright dismissal. Um, >> thank you. >> But I appreciate you making them. And as you know, this is code enforcement, so it's a little less uh >> correct >> procedurally stringent as than regular court, if you will. Um, but that said, so let me ask you, other than the
motions, any additional uh testimony or any additional witnesses that you'd like to call? >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Wati would like to speak up on their behalf. Do you want me to question or you want to make a statement? Want to make a statement as to what happened as to Mr.
>> And give me your name again, sir. >> Mr. Nicholas Wick. >> Thank you, sir. >> The owner of the property. >> Yes, the owner of the property. >> Um, you recall May in May of 2025, this the town of
Wahashi was going out and doing some work in the now off the street. >> I was sent pictures of it. I was out of town working when that happened. It was May 22nd of 20. >> Yeah. What was your knowledge occurred in May 22nd, not
the photos in the thing where they they dug up the culbert and then dumped a bunch of dirt in there and it's it's washed out into the the canal and it was already eroding from them doing that. It wasn't me. They were saying that I did
it. I wasn't even here. I was in Illinois working >> after that the city covered your culvert your own. >> Yes, it flooded. We had massive rains and it backed I had almost I had two and
a half feet of water on my property and it was there for four months. Well, ever since that we had the rains during the summer. >> Oh. to town. >> My son did. He he contacted Craig, told him they needed to unplug our culvert so
we can get the water out. And he just basically laughed him off. Told him if he if you replace the cover then you'll have drainage. That's what he said. >> Hung up on you. No, I took and I didn't jet water
through the culvert. I took and put a pipe inside my cart. The culvert is still there. I put a pipe in the culvert and pushed it through it. When I did, the water on my side was up here. The water in the canal was down there and it washed through and that's when it washed
the road out. I had no control over stopping it till it caved in and then it blocked the culbert off again. >> And when was that that >> was on the 6th >> of November. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Miss Thompson told my son he came here in person and asked what their
definition of of fixing the culver was and they said to make it flow any way possible, whatever means it takes to make it flow. So I stuffed the pipe in there, but they stuffed a rock or something down in the pipe
and it blocked it off while the water came up instead of going out. My culvert's seven foot under the road. >> The water was washing out at the road level >> at the top. >> At the top. Yes. The water was coming up
like 5 ft >> because I had so much water on my property. I pumped out after it went down some. I pumped out over 300,000 gallons of water. >> Okay.
I eventually had to take and block dam off my ditch and then pump all the water out. I pumped it into my pond to get it to drain out to where I could get down to work on the culver. The culver's still there. >> But all that work that you did was after November 6. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Of 20 before because it was under this much water. >> Okay. All right. Go ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry to interrupt. No, there was the hole. I didn't see which hole he pulled up on the thing earlier.
>> Can they put that back up there? >> The whole >> the aerial photograph. Is that what you're talking about? >> No, I don't know. I didn't see it on the thing. He said he they showed a hole that was on the on the road map. It >> was Google Maps and show
>> There was a photograph of that on there. Yeah. I didn't see >> this is where this is >> those holes there. >> This is May of 2024. And this the pipe actually crosses right here. >> That's where you talk. No, it does not.
Those are on the 20 ft outside my property line to the east of my property. >> That photograph there? >> Yeah. That was drug dug by the boring company to put the power lines in there. That's where the hole that he was claiming was over my culbert, which is
actually down here. >> Well, let me let me >> dug a ditch so that they could level their track machine out to do the boring. And that was in 2022. >> It's been way ever since. Yeah. >> It's It's never This ain't nothing new. It It's been
there since 2022. It was in July. >> And ma'am, stand back. That was not that boring. >> Yeah. >> But I just want to make sure this picture is not in evidence. Correct. >> Correct. So let's not have any discussion about this. I understand that. But there's
this isn't even in the record. So >> dug by the directional boring company. >> I understand that. But that's not us. >> But so who put this photo in so she's not going to consider it. >> Okay. >> But he relied on >> I was just wanting to know which picture
he put. But there is a picture where it shows the canal bank and it's tore up. finally get that picture where that trailer across. >> No, the nail bank is tore up.
This one, this is where they dug the hole. That hole has been there since 22. They dug a hole. They see that trench right there. It's the same size as >> Just tell me what photograph. Am I looking in your exhibits? I have all
those. Just tell me which one. >> Y. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's just these are the holes. Okay, >> that's the only reason that it's showing that it's tore up. The grass is tore up
and everything. Someone you could there's a picture also that shows a track where someone went up on the canal bank with a trailer and drug it through there. That's why it looks so bad as it does. The trailer toward the bank, but that was done by the the directional
boring company for FPNL. That was that was in like I said July of 2022. >> Was this what you're talking about? >> That is the Phil May 20. Okay. >> That's after it's spilled back in is what you're >> saying. This is when they dug out the
pipe >> way back >> 2022. No, this is this is what they did. Town did. They dug this out in May of 2022 >> or May 22nd, 2025, I think. >> Yeah, that's what the date is. Okay. Okay. All right. So,
>> that's where they dug. They dug up my bulver. They got into the power line which pulled and cracked this bank both ways. This one all the way back to the new stamp driveway. This one goes down to the pine tree up there. The power cable supposed to be up here. It is now
down here and out in the canal and the bank. >> Okay. >> Because they hooked it. >> All right. >> All right. Let's let your attorney continue asking you questions and then I'll give Mr. Curts an opportunity to cross-examine you when she's finished. >> Um, so you were looking at this one. This is the P. We're looking at figure 4-1, right?
>> This is after we had rain and the uh bank started caving in. We went down there with a shovel and dug out my culbert. That's my culbert right there. And the power line is sitting right on top of it. Power line supposed to be up here. >> It is not.
>> See that black pipe with the red stripe? That's laid out now. >> And okay, so that's that's figure 4- 4.1 in section 4, exposed power line safety hazard. And that was your position caused by the work done in May.
>> Yeah. >> No. >> Okay. >> And then what um >> when how did you discover that this occurred in May? How do you know this happened? My son came home and seen the when he drove down the road seen where they dug up and dunked a bunch of dirt
off in the side of the canal. So he took a picture of it and sent it to me. >> Then um >> cuz they they completely covered my culbert. >> Prior to that, this is prior to it. >> They put a pipe in my cart and then
buried it. They've been like that since 2015 somewhere in there. He started bent. >> So um what did you um did you contact? >> Let's not talk each other questions now.
But um did you contact 818 811 Florida 811 to confirm whether they're digging in May was done with the survey of where the power lines were my son. >> Yeah.
>> Is there anything I'm missing that you wanted to add for reference to actual violation? Is it water going to their day? >> No. You know, no one did that mention that. >> Well, I I I pushed the pipe through and got I got a small pipe in there now.
It's a 6 inch diameter pipe that goes all the way across. It's out in the canal and it's in my side. It drains the water. I put a hose in it and washed it through it. I didn't do any of this. This was done
to me and I got charged for it. That's what the whole problem is. >> What do you mean you got charged for it? Well, they filed the the code violation law. >> Okay. >> I I didn't do none of this. I wasn't even here when it was done. >> Okay.
>> The rightway permit requires you to do what kind of engineering that they want you to do? >> Well, that paper that we seen in the file the last time stated if I file for a permit that grants them right to my property. >> Well, it was really right away for their
agreement, but they have a lot of stuff to do to provide you with that. Correct. as that's for replacing that's >> I'm not following what you're saying. >> Okay. Well, you know, I think that might be a question for your son. So, um >> but they're
that's been the whole issue for years. They're my property runs out almost that canal bank and they're trying to take it. The county when the when the water company come through and put water down, the water line was supposed to run right down that ditch bank. They don't own the
property. It's mine. The county moved their profit their water line over on the other side of the canal and run it out to 140th. They told the town the the drainage district then to move their road. That's why they put they got concrete culberts under every
crossing down that canal so that they can put in a a concrete culbert. They give them I was in all the meetings when they first founded this town. They give them three options. You can either put back fill the canal because
the canals are crooked. That's what the whole problem is. The canal varies way over about 5 ft once it gets to my property. The county told them you can take and put fill in the canal, move your road over where it's supposed to be and then
re redig it, which they said you can't do because the water lines on the other side of canal now. Or you can take and put a culvert in there and run all the way down and then put your road over the top of the culvert. Or they could put a culvert at the
corner and use the road they already have on the other side of the canal. The county said that would be your best viable option. We went to the first meeting when they opened up when they became in town.
First thing they did they put out flyers all we're going to shut the road down for 30 days. So we put in this culvert. First thing they did, we're not doing that. And they threw away all the paperwork. So now they're still then they came and paved my property after I told them I
didn't want them using my my property for their vote. And when the town was formed, that was one of the 25 land mandates that the county mandated them to do to become a town. They had to move the road
and they refused to do it. They waited till I was out of town. One of the council members called me to make sure I was out of town and they ran over with the paving company, paid only the sex two, three properties wide. They
paid that and then they left. >> Okay. >> You your coverage. >> My culvert was put in back for a second. When you renew with
Mr. Lore, um, did he offer to cover in for you? >> Yes, he wanted to do it. >> That was a couple years ago. >> So, it wasn't him seeing anything. >> No, this is when he I guess he first came into his job. The guy prior to him
was trying to get me to do it, too. And I didn't want I didn't let him do it. >> And then, um, >> the one prior to him is the one that stuffed the pipe up inside my pipe. and then buried it. What it is, they tried to in order to have property, this is
claiming they have some of that land, they pushed the road out and buried my culvert. They went out past my culvert. That's why, like he's saying, the bottom of it was all tore up. Well, there there is no top. It has a slope. It slopes
down from a regular pipe. It's about that long and it slopes down to a point. But they have buried his death because they pushed the road out trying to say they have property there. >> Okay. Any more questions for this witness?
>> No. >> Yeah, you can talk to him. Just All this was done from someone else doing it. >> I hear that. Yeah, I hear you. >> So, um, do you want Mr. Curts to cross-examine him while he's standing there or you want to flip him around? All right. So, let's go to your second
witness and I'll have Mr. Curts cross examine when everybody's finished their testimony. >> I just rush real fast. >> Yes. Go ahead. Do you like to Do you need to be present? Do you want me to recess for two minutes or you just >> No, I'm good. Okay. Go ahead, ma'am. >> Yes. My name is Thomas Richard.
>> And then you're the guy. >> Yes. Rem. >> And you're this just so that I have the record clear, you're the son. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Go ahead. How did she come to find that the city or town
works on whether it's a covert in the road in May of 2020 May 22nd 2025 >> yeah um well at the time my dad was out of town I was handling juggling working for
the county and uh my mom just broke her ankle in March 28th of that here. Um, we just got her back home at the beginning of May and I was on my way back from work and I just happened to see that you
can see the canal banks weathered and then all of a sudden at our culbert you could see a perfectly kneaded neatly padded formed. >> What photo that was >> the one that depicts it is
is figure 3.1. Um, that is where I drove across the street around and took a photo and then that's how I discovered that bill was dumped. And you can see it's packed on the top of the bottom was never packed
and basically what happened. It just washed away once the rain system. >> What did you do when you saw did you make a certain request with um 811? um >> at that time. >> Yeah. >> No, I I didn't do much of it. I was too
busy with my uh taking care of my mother and handling the property without >> Did you later pull up one report? >> That was in September. That That was when like I said, uh >> I'll show you. >> No, that's when I did the request for
it, but I called them in September. >> Yeah. Yeah. I uh See, uh, section 3.10 shows September 20th is where I see that it's starting basically to wash inward.
Um, and that's when I I was asking Craig at the time, a month prior and photo 3.9 uh July 26th. Uh, that's where I called him and discussed that we are having
flooding as shown in the previous photos of that. >> Did you call? So, you're saying you call Mr. New York? >> Yes. >> Um, to discuss that the >> the retainment of water on the property. dingled up the back that they did in there >> due to the cover being covered.
>> And then what was his response? >> He said to basically, "Well, if you repair, you can uh drain." And I said, "Well, if you didn't cover it, we wouldn't have this problem." Cuz 2023 was a heavy raining year. 2024 was a
heavy raining year, and we never had an issue. And then all of a sudden, the beginning of 2025, we have an issue after it was tampered with. That's on on us. >> Work was done. >> That was on here on section four.
>> Section four. >> Uh that's where I I got notifications of the them putting in a section 4.2 and 4.4. That's where 811 is giving me email confirmation of me putting in a ticket.
They have it surveyed. They came out to survey it. They there was a technical difficulty. I uh later found out in the uh records I pulled from 811 that they uh the technician that was supposed to mark it that day had a meeting. So I had
to go back and then he marked it out later. Um but then after that is when it's same in the photo after the email where it shows the
power line showing. That's when I contacted 811 later on to get a five-year record pulled on our property and adjacent. And the only thing that was shown is when FPNL dug and put the power line on the canal
banks and then a year later they did around the bank where where they went around the turn on e-ro then no other contact other than ours in September. >> Back to what work did they do at the mail bank that would have would have
necessitated doing an 811 or should haveated thatition? We warned them that there was a power line in the canal. >> Power line ripped up at that. >> No. >> Was sir? >> No. >> Okay. So, were they digging at that time? >> Uh, in May. >> In May. Yes.
>> Okay. So, your position that they should have fall in. >> If you dig anywhere, it's my understanding that you're supposed to fall for utilities. >> Okay. >> No. As stated from 81 themselves, a fiveyear record and only three records show.
>> We have that in there. glossery and it's kind of hard to see. I have a lack of an 811 call from the town enter it. >> Two of them are FPNO like I stated in
2022 and 2023 one's from us in September >> in May of >> the Phil because he was saying he could sleeve it Craig. So >> what does that mean? Excuse me. sleeving either
>> the he wanted to cut the end off and extend it further. >> Okay. >> And we told him he couldn't do that because where you're doing like my father said taper the where you starting getting a roof is under the road because they push push the road out.
>> Okay. >> And we told him you couldn't do that because the power line and you don't disrupt decades of dirt that had been packed there. And >> I guess May he decided he could do it. >> There a hole that's been built.
>> Not no there is no even even now there's no evidence of there being a hole existing permitting them to dig. >> What during your efforts to comply when your dad pushed the hole through the and then the water went through and
caused a little bit of work. >> Correct. Yes, >> that was your that was your time. >> We were told though when I went on the 3rd of November because I had to also file a affidavit for RV not being used for somebody living there. I asked for
what is going on with this case. That is when I was told by Donna Thomas the definition of repair was to open the culbert have it. >> And you're saying November of this past year, November 2025. Okay. And you were
talking about Miss Thomas who's sitting in the room. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> I came here personally, asked. Okay. >> And that was their definition of repair. >> Okay. >> So, on the six, we slid it through, but we hit the end. Um, and like we said,
there seems to be a rock or something in there. There's still in the culvert. It's not crushed because we can see through it, but it's when the water started going, it started hitting a block and it washed quite washed up. That's why it was such wash out.
Otherwise, it would have just kept straight out straight. It shouldn't have washed upwards. If there wasn't no tampering with it, it wouldn't have an issue washing out even if we put a pipe through it or not.
>> Also, the compant um you're supposed to this application or there other documents they're supposed to give you, but to your understanding they were going to give you a copy of description as to what they did or document that you believe that they were going to give you or help you know provide
>> the only thing they provided on the uh November 3rd was just a clear definition of repair that that's all I was provided didn't get anything else and I also put in before the hearing here a public record
request on the 18th that's what that email chain is about >> and for the time period between April 1st and June June 30th to find out if there was any uh work orders, invoices,
something to prove that they dug in May, but then the hearing of the first came around and Craig admitted on the oath that he dug in May. >> It's Craig admitted that he that area the last. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> And then um or Mr. That would be Mr. Craig. >> Yes. Um, has this testimony changed from last from last hearing to this hearing to your recollection? >> So, >> and then um is there any other thing or
photo that we have not shown that you would like to explain or comments? Um, I mean the section five clearly shows that even with the roof being washed out and the dirt underneath the road being wash
the hole but um everything that was tampered with is about where you would have to get to to see the culbert to begin with. So I would honestly just state that the loose settlement washed out. I mean, we
had thousands of gallons of water behind it that we tried to control, but it was a full raining season. We tried to get ahead of it in July and let them know, hey, we're going to be filling up more. We were ignored. Do you got your
regulation during the summer first hearing? Was there a photo produced in May of them doing the work? >> There was three photos that don't look um they never had a time stamp on it for my reculation, but there was three photos that showed
I don't know if it's because it's not as um that don't show as grainy of a photo. I believe Yeah, that one. This photo here it shows but that that's clearly not a cold washing out that looks like
bucket. >> Is that photograph and evidence? >> It seems to be yes with their case. >> I don't know. There's mostly um time. >> Oh, okay. >> One of the ones that might >> do you have the case file or who has the
case? It should be on the back. It'll be the last >> This one. >> Okay. >> Never look like that. >> Okay. >> Any other
They're containing that, you know, covers are old, they break, you know, just to go fix it now. you know, the replacement. Um, you know, with a position, it was working in good order. >> Yes. >> I, like I stated, 2023 had a heavy rain
year. 2024 had a heavy rain year. No failures. >> Okay. >> So, um, you know, is there any evidence that it's rusted out? Is there any photos of rusted out presented by this? >> I haven't seen anything. Only thing I've been hearing is a testimony. There's no photos, no evidence, physical evidence
demonstrating them digging up, seeing the culvert showing the decay. So, no. >> All right, Mr. C, go ahead and cross-examine any witnesses that you like that the respondents have called. Um, yeah, I think to clarify,
um, I'm not sure who's going to be able to answer the questions that I've got. So, if Mr. >> Yeah. >> You okay with both of them being up there, ma'am? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> If you're okay with >> I'm I'm fine. >> Need a bigger pony. He's taking up a lot of it. >> Mr. Ro, I've seen you. Do you know when uh the the Culbert pipe
was initially installed? >> The original pipe there pipe. The pipe is apparently still in there. >> Yeah. 1967. >> 1967 is the when that pipe was put in. >> Yeah. My father paid the drainage district put it in.
Um and that That pipe benefits your property. >> Yeah, correct. >> And all the other properties around me to run off on if I got the lowest spot and so
as I understand it north roads adjacent to your property, >> right? Um, and how long has the town been maintaining North Road? >> Town doesn't maintain my property. >> No, the town maintains North Road, don't
they? >> In order to answer that, you're going to have to go back to the state made the town of Locka Hatch. He reservey all
of Locks Hatch in 1993. the federal or the state supreme court mandate. They spent $1.7 million changing everything. They moved all the boundaries out. Okay. So, North Road is only this big in front of my place. The
>> they're using my property as North Road. >> All right. and and and the portion of your property, what you consider your property that is a travel way for automobiles and trucks
that is maintained by the town of Lockachi Groves, correct? >> No, they haven't done any maintenance to it. You don't have any records of any maintenance there. So it's your contention that there is is the is the road in front of your
property is it paved or is it a dirt road? >> It's paved. >> Okay. Who paved it? >> I don't know who was paved. >> Was it after I told not to pave it? >> Is it your understanding that that was done at the request of the town of
Oxachi Groves? >> Most likely. >> Okay. Um, and about how long ago was that? >> I don't I can't tell that was >> 2015. >> Maybe.
I don't know. >> Maybe. >> Okay. For more than seven years ago though. >> I see. >> Okay. Now the the
um covert pipe that empties into the canal. Correct. >> Yeah. >> And the canal is not on your property. Correct. >> No. >> Okay.
Um and the canal uh is the property of um the drainage district slash town of Loxa Groves. Correct. >> Not so sure about it. >> Okay. >> But you all didn't own the rights to it
and there's no record of anybody buying the rights to it. The mining company that used to be around here owns the rights to them. >> Okay. Um uh that that canal to the best of your knowledge does that canal is it
serviced by the town of Oxachi Groves? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And going to approach and show you um from your exhibits what has been labeled
3.1 and Yes. Okay. And that shows bill work having been done by what you presume to be the town.
>> Don't presume it was confirmed by the credit. >> Okay. So this was uh this was done. Uh what is your understanding of the reason that that was done?
>> He dug out, pulled the power line. That was my understanding. >> And did you see this happen? >> No. As I stated, I was out of work. >> You weren't there. Did you hear Mr. Low
say that he dug it up? There was a power line. He got nervous and covered it up >> in the first hearing. He stated that he dug it up, hit the power line. >> Um, and
was prior to to this picture, were you aware that the canal bank was washing out into the canal? >> Where's your evidence of washing out? >> I'm asking you, sir, whether you were aware of that. Well, I have evidence
showing no. So, no, it was not. On the previous photos shown that it was not because this is what shows what it looked like. Does that look like a caveman?
>> When was that picture taken? You're you're showing me >> this was when they show me you're showing figure 1.2-1.3. >> Yes. showing the culvert after buried and the pipe put in in 2016. >> Yeah. And then
>> so so that picture when was it taken? >> In 2016. >> That was taken in 2016. Okay. Um and that that pipe >> uh I think your father testified that
that pipe was put in in 1967. >> That is not the culvert. >> That's not the culbert. That is what the drainage district put in. And the cul is here where that hole is right there. >> Okay. >> They put in that little pipe which is
only like a 4 inch piece of pipe. >> They stuffed it up inside there and then buried it over top of it. >> Who's they? >> That's what >> Thank you. Just to the public. >> Thank you. >> So what you're saying is 1.213 2 -13
>> shows a pipe going through the pipe that was installed in 1967 >> partially through it. Yes. It's only about 10 foot long. They stuck it up inside. >> Okay. And that and these pictures were taken in 2016. Would you like pictures
from 2024 December? >> I don't see no cave. Then the bank looks there. >> Show me what photograph you're looking at, please. >> This is 2.1 through 2.5. Uh 2.3 on point.
It shows with Canel. No, you're fantastic. Do you see it now? >> Yeah, these ones here. 2.1 to 2.5. Correct. >> Yes. It's actually the one where I'm showing it. >> Okay.
>> This one. >> Yep. That's what he just pointed to. >> Okay. You're saying this picture was taken in December. 20 uh >> 24. Okay.
And then the picture that's under is the one that I was telling you see the track where someone drove it. They they pulled a trailer across there and that's what opened up that hole. I'm looking at section five of your
exhibit. So, figure 5.1 through 5.5. This being 5.1, I guess. >> Um, the road was washed out on November 6th, 2025. Okay.
And is that the result of you running the water through the the run through? I just pushed a pipe through here. Once I opened up, >> the water was this high on this side down there like that flow through it. I couldn't stop.
>> That was after 300,000 gallons of water. These are starting to rush. This 50. >> So the water was coming up right here. It was boiling straight up in the air right in that corner. >> Was that >> the pipe is down here in the bottom?
>> So there's almost 7 foot difference. >> On November 6th, prior to this picture, explain to me again what you did with respect to the pipe. I pushed a piece of
piece of 6 in pipe through that pipe >> through your cver. >> Let me Can I ask a clarifying question? Through your culver pipe or through that little tiny pipe that's at the bottom pipe. That little tiny pipe. >> Okay. >> Ever since May 22nd.
>> Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. >> I pushed a piece of pipe through here and when the it got to about right here >> and when you're when you you're canal side, let me understand
you're pushing you're pushing the pipe from your property towards the canal. >> Okay. >> When I got I pushed it out to here. Well, that's where whatever they put in there. I pushed out two different laws,
but it the water come running through the pipe. When it did, it hit whatever was pushed down in my cold and came up instead of going out the cold. That's what caused this erosion. It was it was pushing up right in this corner right here.
>> Okay. And and when you were doing this this work, pushing the pipe through um into the canal right away, you had not saw a right away permit. Correct. >> No.
I was working off of her Miss Thompson's things and saying that we had to open the culbert up. This was trying to get this settled before the 10th the 10th of November. And that's what they told me I had to do. And when I did that, it blew out.
>> And that all ultimately led to the the work that Mr. L testified to. >> So if you look at the pictures where he took pictures that night, >> you'll see that the only place it washed
out was right here. You can see him digging with his back above it. Right there. This ground over here was not touched. You're talking about under the page section of the website. >> They dug all the pavement out where we get to the pictures.
>> It's not in that one. >> But that show that picture right there shows the water coming up underneath. This is the corner. I'm sorry. It's coming out right there. So picture 5.3
shows the water rushing through. >> Yeah. Where's the one before where they were digging out this before they They just took out the metal hole here. They peeling up the the hole
that's here. Got pictures in there showing them digging here. And I'm showing them digging back to here. This they got a picture. Where's the one with the asphalt on? You can see where the asphalt the the dirt is
completely flat. All they did was peel the asphalt off of it. did not wash out over here. It only washed right there. >> Okay. And >> and that's their picture. >> And the current situation that water is
is is water flowing from your property through a culvert um into the canal. >> Yes. I put 6 inch pipe on there. >> You put a 6 inch pipe in there. When did you do that? >> Saturday. to burn >> Saturday. You got it completely through.
And did you apply for a permit, a fight permit to allow you to connect under the roadway into the canal? >> I was doing is I was directed to unplug the culprit.
No one told me I had to have a rideway permit for it. They just told me I had to unplug the culprit. I've done that. >> Okay. Um, so are you are you satisfied at this
time with the way the culver is operating? >> Don't know. Ain't got no water in it. Bone dry. It's dry season. >> Yes. And also I don't believe you have to have a permit to go through your home.
>> It runs into the canal, right? >> It was already pre-existing. It's there been there for almost 60 years. Any more cross examination? Sorry. No, I don't think I have anything.
>> All right. Any redirect? Be careful talking about road maintenance with Mr. You indicated that you know they don't maintain yet but you know they just what do you mean by it like after they paid the road in 2015 how they maintain but they just don't
>> yeah I haven't touched since >> um and your son's recollection of the video and statements that were made um part of the record it's clear um I was just want to make clear that for the record if you
can have a YouTube video from the first hearing part of the record for I don't have a copy. It's on a video of the town of Los. It wasn't working when we tried to download it earlier. They
showed it to us later back up. Make that part the video part of the record. >> What's the town's response? >> Yes. Um I the video I think what they're referring to is the video the proceeding
hearing in December um with with respect to this particular case. >> Mhm. >> Is that correct ma'am? That's what I'm understanding. Yes. >> Yeah. Typically typically you bring a court reporter to transcribe the hearing and then you enter that subsequently.
But that hearing is what it is. I mean the testimony that's there. I'll I'll uh ask that if both parties if that's your request for that to be entered that it be put on a thumb drive and added to the case file. I think it stands for what it is. It's a a video recording. So I don't have any objection uh from my chair to
doing that. Mr. Curts, did you have objection? >> No objection. >> Okay. So I'll ask that the town uh put that on the thumb drive and add that to their case file. Uh that is not typical because it's not done. You're asking me now to enter a record that's not done until the hearing
is over. >> That's Yeah, that's probably better. And you're not going to whatever you're using it for will be after this proceeding anyways. All right. So, just so the record is clear with that, I'll ask the town to enter that as uh T3, that additional
exhibit. I'm sorry, that's respondents exhibit. Uh so, that'll be R six. It'll be a recording from the December 2nd. Is that correct hearing?
December 1st, 2025 hearing. All right. I'll enter that as composite exhibit R six without objection. All right. Any further redirect, ma'am? >> All right. All right. So, now I've heard from both
of you. Now I have some questions. Did you have something, Mr. Cart? >> I was I was going to >> um I was going to ask if uh we could have uh some rebuttal or clarification testimony, but your
questions may go to that. All right. I guess uh let me start with Mr. Suarez. So, let me understand the the notice of violation here. Uh we're going to go back here. I've allowed a lot of testimony uh because I wanted to make sure I had a full and complete understanding of of what's gone on in
this case. Uh but Mr. Suarez, let me ask you, your notice of violation is dated 1028 2025. Is that correct? >> Correct. What is the photograph that in the case file that I have in the town's case file that you relied on to issue
that notice of violation? What evidence did you rely on? >> Well, I either verbally or I spoke to Mr. Craig and we went out to the property and it was
it was basically his testimony and the pictures of the Phil that I have that I uh we thought at NOV was warranted >> and are those the photographs you're referencing are in the case file? >> Well, I know I posted on 1028.
There should be a photo of at least the street or the the dirt. >> I don't think he's got a copy of the case file in front of him. So, and I my recollection was there was photos from
1028 in the file. >> They Yeah, they are. Um, so I'll just So, I I'll read you the dates of the photographs and I'll show you. >> Do you want Mr. Suarez approach.
>> Yeah, you could. Um, no, no. Let me I I'll continue with some other questions and I'll get to those those photographs. So, Mr. As far as my concern, too, is I recall another photo that was in the case file at the last hearing as well because I I didn't understand the covert back then. So, I
just want to make sure you did not take out any any documents from this case file between the December 1st hearing and today. Is >> I did not. Okay. and the last. So, let me ask Mr. Suarez, let me ask Mr. Curts and let me ask respondents council to approach because I'm going to show you documents and
since we only have one copy, it'll be easier if you're all standing up here to see. So, I'll put these back in. Mr. Suarez, the photograph at the end of this case file is not dated. Do you did you take this photograph?
>> No. >> Okay. Do you know the date of the photograph? >> This Mr. Low can testify today. >> Okay. These these are the photographs from October 28th that you took. I'm going to go back and then I'm going to flip. This one is your photograph of the
posting. Is that correct? >> And you took that photograph? >> Yes. That's another posting photograph that's from November. >> So, this photograph, this is one of the photographs that you relied on to issue the notice. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> This photograph from October 28th. this photograph from October 28th. >> Okay. Then this is the last one. Okay. You can return to your seats. Thank you. >> If you would like, Mr. Low can explain that for that part. Okay.
>> Okay. Mr. Lowour and Miss uh I'm going to butcher your last name. Gleski. >> Yeah. Come up here again for me if you could. Mr. Low, is this a photograph? This is the last uh photograph in the case file. Did you take this photograph?
>> I did not. This was a photograph that was passing by on this roadside that had sent this into us. >> Okay. Do you know the date of the photograph? >> I do not know how. >> Okay. >> Prior to October 28th, >> yes, it was prior to the law.
>> What res? >> The res and then I was I don't have that. >> Well, any compliance should be >> So, we we'll get there. I've heard that this this record was already entered into the into the case file without objection, but I just want to make sure
I understand what what I'm looking at. So, this came from an outside source. This was not taken by anybody in that town. >> Okay. >> There is the J stamp photo from October 28th that I relatively >> correct.
Okay, that was my questions on the photos. So I'll ask that you all go back to your respective places. So >> there is very clearly a lot going on here. Um, and I understand that
what I'm having a legal issue with is that the brunt of the of the photographic evidence, in fact, all of the photographic evidence that's been entered into the record by the town is after the date of and time of posting of the notice of violation. So, I don't
have any evidence before me from the town from October 28th, from before the notice was posted to the property of the condition of the pipe. I don't have a photograph showing the Culver pipe. I don't have anything in the record to prove the town's case. I
>> think you have testimony from Mr. Lau as to the condition of the pipe prior to October 20th. >> But I have conflicting testimony from respondents about that as well. So I I don't dispute that there was a cave. I think the the photographs are very clear that have been entered into the
record from November 6th, but the notice of violation in this case was posted on the property on October 28th at 12:27. The additional photographs from October 28th are from 1229, 1231,
and then one from a resident that that is similar but undated and untimestamped. So, and Mr. Low's testimony about what was happening was not specific with regard to the dates that it happened. So I I'm I I don't
think that you've proven your burden under 162. Uh and that goes to the town that in order to issue a notice of violation, you have to prove and show to the respondent what they're what you allege that they're in violation of um and what they need to do to repair that.
that if all the photographs that the town is relying on post date the notice of violation having been posted to the property that's not legally sufficient under 162 as it relates to the road locking out in the condition of the covert. Now, the allegations about the imminent public
threat, the code is pretty clear as it relates to to what's required, and it says that the town manager shall determine imminent threat to public health, excuse me, an imminent public health threat exists. And the testimony from the code enforcement officer is that the town
manager didn't make that determination. >> Um, I apologize. I thought that Mr. Lowour had previously testified on this issue. if he's able to testify um on that issue with respect to the direction from the town manager.
>> Yes, ma'am. I have I have an email from the town manager saying that is a health safety issue. >> Is it in the record? >> It is not in the right now. >> So that I I mean I you know I understand again as I said before there is a lot going on here and the parties are
clearly not in agreement with who did what when. Um but the evidence that I have before me is is is not sufficient to prove that as of October 28th uh there was a clear indication um proven with evidence not just verbal testimony
because again I can't rely on I can hear what he says but I need to see as you photo documented everything else in this case uh what the condition of the pipe was and there's no evidence in the record about the town manager making that determination. The other issue is there's testimony that the code says
that there's supposed to be 20 days given under chapter 30 for the repairs to be made. Now, I understand if November 6, if that was an imminent threat and the town had no choice but to repair the road, that circumvents and and alleviates that 20-day provision. I'm sure under under subsequent uh code
section that you have, but I just I'm not finding I think there was a violation, but I don't think that the record before me proves the violation. Um, I'm not sure why the photographs are entered the way that they are, and I'm not sure why the notice of violation doesn't rely on
additional photographs, but um I'm I'm I don't have enough evidence uh to find the violation of the of the covert repair. The other things that have gotten into the engineers, I mean, and the permits and who's required to get a permit uh when, that's not even what's before me. the the code sections
that were cited um were only the maintenance of the covert and the public threat the imminent public threat section of the code. So I'm I'm not finding uh violation in this case. So I'm going to give
everybody one last opportunity to say anything they wish me to hear and then I'm going to make my ruling. So I'll start um with the town >> um What we would like to do is put the evidence um the email and testimony of Mr. Lowour
with respect to uh the town manager's correspondence to him and discussions with him about the eminent threat. >> Okay. Can you get that quickly? your entire um listed there
responded back in November response that hey this is not right you know this time to review it in the case file they've known that this was our position that marriage didn't do that and the finding have be included the packet of material
>> come come back to the podium I' I've heard what you're saying uh if they want if If they want to add one more exhibit, I'll I'm going to add everything to the record. I don't believe it's going to change my outcome. Uh that said, I'm going to give you your last uh parting words. If there's anything else that I haven't heard that you want me to hear that is completely my clients are just
there's no violation exists. I don't understand it. I think you got the you understood and thank you so much for your attention during this matter. I know it's a little >> it's it's complicated. This one is very complicated. Um >> went through it with us and I appreciate it. >> So let me give Mr. allow an opportunity
to come back with that email and I will uh review that and I'm going to ask you to review that as well, ma'am. Um I will wait on him. >> Make it very quickly, please. Yes. And I will wait for you to re I will wait for you to return before I finish.
Uh, show show council first. and hold this. Hold it before I ask her if she has any objection for me. You can set it there upside down if you want upside down so I don't see it. Just so you don't have to keep standing there. I'm sorry. Thank you. I must say I think it should have been
made in a sort file. Uh I think it's seriously I don't see the that it was sent um the information being sent. It's strangely I guess copy. >> It's just the way it printed out. Sorry. It's also a determination that you're
should I mean >> I hear what you're saying. Um I'm going to admit it over objection. I'm going to add it to the towns. Uh I got a copy of it here. You can keep that one for yourself. You're okay. I'll enter it as composite. Uh T3
over objection. All right. All right, I'll enter that as I have done as composite exhibit T3. Uh, so the record is clear. Mr. Suarez, I have an affidavit of service in the case file, but I don't
have any of the certified mail. Did you have any of the certified mail documents? or you just posted. Help me recall your original. >> I posted and certified it. The certification the green paper should be in there. >> All right. So, with that, in case
C25-47, I've entered the uh party's respective exhibits very clearly on the record. I'll find based on the affidavit of posting from Mr. Suarez as well as the actual service received by respondent via the presence of their council at the
previous hearing that there's more than sufficient service for today's hearing. Uh I'm going to find based on review of all of the documents that have been entered into the record uh including respondents exhibits uh probably most
noteworthy is the homeowners declaration of facts in response to the notice of violation. Uh, and most importantly, given what I'm going to find, um, the notice of violation itself and the evidence that was used to initiate that
notice of violation and that was provided in the case file, I'm going to find uh, that the town has not successfully proved a violation of 70-015 or of 30-7 or 30 point 30-1 subpar 4. So, I'm going to issue an order that
finds no violation. uh given that the notice of violation posting predates the photographic evidence uh that was provided to me in the case file and given the uh inconclusive and contradictory testimony uh from Mr. hour. Contradictory only in the fact
that it was contradicted by evidence that respondents put into the record with regard to the condition of the road uh on or about the October uh the end of October's time frame prior to the November 6 collapse, which is very clearly uh demonstrated in the photographs, but that was not what the
notice of violation was predicated upon. So, um I'll I'll say that to put you on notice that there is certainly sufficient evidence as to a violation that started on November 6. So, um, you know, and there's also testimony just so everyone is clear about putting pipes
into the road without permits. So, um, that's not to say there will not be other issues that come about as a result of what has been said here today, but as it relates to the record before me and my job today, which was to consider the merits of a violation hearing, I have not found the town to meet its burden. So, I apologize for the time it took to
get through all that, but I wanted to make sure that I gave everybody an opportunity to to say and provide everything that they could say to me so that I could make a a finding findings of fact that were completely substantiated. Uh, so I appreciate your your uh time on all of that today. Uh, and I'm sure the town is not thrilled
with me, but that's uh based on the record I have, that's the finding I have to make. So, with that, you'll get an order, your client will get an order that finds no violation. Uh obviously because there's no violation, I will not award administrative costs and I'll ask the town uh for what it is worth going forward to please preserve both the
town's evidentiary case file and respondents exhibits all as one uh should there be any need for them in the future. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You can be excused. Yes. Thank you. And now we can go to the next case.
Um, if we could call real quickly, uh, number three, Triplequats LLC. Uh, the address is 15317 Collecting Canal Road. Um, PCN number 4141431701204. Case number 251001.
um violations of uh ULDC sections 1751 170 175 1110 175240 um and uh 20-50A
1 um with respect to to this case um on uh Friday January 30th I had received correspondence from uh John Heron um who
is who had been retained on Wednesday to represent the uh the respondents. Um he advised me that um he had a conflict
um including um uh let's say um he had he had a conflict with a a couple previous umly scheduled hearings
um and he was asking for a continuence until uh the February ruary 18th special magistrate uh meeting. Um I have uh agreed to that continuence.
Um and so uh would like to put it on the record. Um Mr. Heron will uh probably stipulate to to service, but I'll have um the uh code enforcement officer u
provide service with information with respect to service on uh for this hearing today. >> Okay, great. >> John Suarez for the record presenting case 251001 in reference to service at a property located 15317 collecting canal road. The
notice of violation notice of hearing was posted at 1531 Southern Canal Road on December 26, 2025. Copy of the same was sent certified mail to the property owner record listed the Palm Beach property appraiser on December
December 30th, 2025. Copy of the order was posted at town hall on December 26, 2025. Prepare to show the case folder for service. Did you get the certified mail back
>> the uh signed letter? Not yet. >> Okay. But you posted. >> Yes. >> All right. So, given the request for continuence in the agreement, I'll look at the record for for today's hearing is strictly for service and I'll only enter that portion of the case file that has
specifically to do with service today. There's a bunch of other affidavit. Is this the first time this case has come to hearing? >> Yes, there's um we would continue it on our end, >> but there's no prior orders from it. >> No prior. It's the it would be the first
time it's coming before you for the violation here. The NOV is somewhere in here. All right. Anything further? >> Nothing further on that case. >> All right. In case 25100
Z1, uh, for the record, the respondent is not present. That's not you, sir. Right. No. Okay. For the record, the respondent is not present. I will enter uh the town's evidentiary case file only the uh affidavit of service and the
notice of violation for today's hearing. But based on review of those uh the affidavit of posting, the town had uh legally sufficient service to proceed with today's hearing. So, given the respondents uh requests to continue in the town's agreement, I'll grant you grant the mutually agreed uh continuence
and I'll reset this for violation hearing on February 18th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Next one. Okay. The next the next case uh I'm Deanna for the town of Loxa Hatche Groves
previously sworn is for FORO Properties LLC address 1462F road PCN number 41414317016080010 case number CE25-61 it's for the uldc D section 92-010
recreational vehicles and the property owner is here. >> Um you can come to the podium sir. >> So uh the property if we if we can can we put
it up on the property appraiser please? 1462 F- Road. Okay. So, the notice of violation, notice of hearing was posted at 1462 F Road. A copy of the NOV NOH was mailed via certified mail and regular mail to
the property owner of record as listed in the property appraiser records. The green card was signed and returned. >> What dates did you send and post? >> Hold on. I have pictures here. Uh it was ma certified mail on January
15th and the and regular mail on January 15th and the property was posted on the 15th the same day the was done. Uh Mr. Kaiser did get the notice. In fact, we spoke um at his property. Uh he
came in on January 6th and had a meeting here in chambers with myself and attorney Kurtz. Um he has more than the allowed amount of RVs on his property. He's aware of that. He paid for his
permit in 2025 but never received his inspections. He scheduled his inspections and then cancelled them, rescheduled them, cancelled them again. Um, when speaking with attorney Curts and I,
um, you know, we did tell him that you have approximately 8 to 10 RVs and you're only allowed four cuz it's a 10acre property. Uh he did indicate to us that he was trying to make it through uh the season
uh and if we could just go, you know, and allow him to continue through the end of the season. Um and then I told him the case was going to court or magistrate hearing and I told him as well he's here. We've been
in contact. He is doing some things to try and I guess make the arrangements. We told him they had to they had to be removed. He's only allowed four. So if he has four extra, if he has eight, then four have to go.
So now I can, you know, um I don't know how he's going to fix that. Um, additionally, it is recommended that administrative costs incurred in the amount of 23405 be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of Laxahhatchee
ropes. And I do have copies of the case file for your records. >> And what was the compliance date you were asking for? >> The compliance date was >> No. What are you asking me today for compliance?
Um he needs to get it down to four. He has not split his property yet. Um and the town sees it as him having too many. So he needs to do it as soon as possible. I mean
I >> All right. And what uh fine is what fine amount are you seeking in the event of non-compliance? uh like two $200 a day. >> All right. Any additional testimony or is that it? >> No, that's it. >> Okay.
Your name, sir? >> Mark Kaiser. >> And you're the owner. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Of the LLC. >> Correct. >> And it's K. Spell your last name. >> K A I S E R. All right, Miss Thomas is going to show you the case file that she's going to
ask me to enter into the record. >> Okay, I've seen it already. >> Yes, you've been you've already seen it. >> All right, just show it to them real quick. Do you have and take as much time as you want? If you want to take time to review your paper, go ahead. >> Okay. Any objection to that being entered?
>> No. >> Okay. All right. So, for the easy part then in this case, C25-61, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. If I could see the case file is broken out into two two sections for you. This just
copy of the ordinance also. >> Okay. But this is all that's in the case file, not the ordinance. Is the ordinance in there? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, all of it's in there. >> Okay. And just so the record is clear, what you've handed me Miss Thomas's exact duplication of the record that you
showed to Mr. Kaiser. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right, Mr. Kaiser, you've heard what the town is saying. They're telling me that you have eight RVs instead of four that you're allowed and that you you've applied for a permit. >> If I if I make my case here, uh the
original permits were I last season I had we were we were allowed four RVs per five acres. And that's when I put the permits in for the RVs, which the inspection never happened. So I assumed that they were
this year four RVs per five acres, which is big change, which I did not know about. And in the midst of all of this, after Deanna, >> that's fine. >> You're right. >> Uh I uh I'm in the process now of
splitting up the two of the properties to comply to which is allowed three RVs per five acres uh when we split the property up. So I'm in the process now while a survey is coming out in the next 3 weeks to uh
reservey the property and uh I'm asking if I can get an extension through season to >> what is what do you mean by season? uh May uh May season's over May 1st roughly if
I could get an extension to uh keep the RVs I have that have already taken their monies per season and also in the process I'll I'll be compliance with six RVs three per three
per five acres which would bring it only down to uh being in violation of two heartbeats. I'm just I'm trying to make it easier. I'm doing my due diligence to comply with
splitting up the property and Okay. And Miss Thomas, you have a signed green card. Is that accurate? >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. >> That's in the case file as well. Okay, after that the RVs will be removed and I
will be in compliance with the code and also clean up the property so there's no other further small violations if Okay. And the town code allows occupied RVs
with the with the approved permit. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And it's based on the size of the property. >> Yes. >> What's the town's response? So this is February 2nd today. So he's asking for March, April, May. He's asking for
essentially what? 90 days is what you're asking for? >> Yes. >> What's the town's response? >> The the town is not inclined to give 90 days. What? Um I don't have any photographs here of the violation. Do you have photographs?
>> They're not in um it should be under the the photographs should be under the side with the affidavit of service. >> I do. I missed one file. Thank you. You're welcome. >> But they this is a seasonal business as everyone knows. So this will really
in this for Okay. The photographs I have are from the 16th of January and the 23rd of January. Do you have additional photographs? >> No. We had been to the property previously um for manure issues
um and a fire that transpired. Um and that's when we had spoken to Mr. Kaiser about his RVs. Um and I did tell him that a notice of violation would be coming down the the road and he is aware
he was aware of it. Um he even scheduled the hearing um with myself and attorney Kurtz um on January 6th. Um so he knows he's in violation. He he doesn't deny
that fact. Um so I know the town is not going to wait, you know, doesn't is not inclined for the 90 days. I mean as far as communication, yes, we have been back and forth. And what date did you your notice of
violation was dated what? And you gave him till when to comply. The notice of violation, notice of hearing was dated the 15th >> of >> of 2026 of what? >> January 15th, 2026.
>> And he was ordered to comply by January 20th. Um, I know that's only a a 5day period, but like I said, he had come in on the 6th. I understand. I understand that, but I just want to make very clear that is not
enough time to get a permit. So, I'm going to give him the 90 days, but in the future, I'm going to be inclined to not >> He had a permit. He had a permit. He just did not get the inspection and under 90. >> And his testimony is that the permit was
from last year under a different code >> for 2025. Yes. >> So, that he would need an entirely new permit. No, we um just like we have treated other cases um the ones that had their 2025 permit, we have agreed that
we would um take that permit for 2025 and if he got the inspection, we would apply the inspection for 2025 and 2026 because he had already paid for it, but he didn't get the inspection. We have done that with others in the past. So,
we would do the same for him. >> Okay. Um, John Suarez, for the record, ma'am, I just wanted to be clear, it's under the same code. Uh, the code did not change. There might have been miscommunication when he was talking about the size of the parcel and the
limitations, but this this code has essentially been in effect for in effect for a year and a half. >> Oh, prior to me. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So there that that I was understanding something different from what he said. But either either way in these permit cases, guys, you've got to
give more than 5 days to comply that I don't you're the state law requires you to give a reasonable amount of time and and I'm going to give him a reasonable amount of time. Now there's no been no testimony and you correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not a life safety matter. This is not a health, safety, welfare issue. There's no
>> correct there's no risk of any issue here. So sir, I'm going to give you the time because they got you to a hearing pretty quickly. I am not going to be as lenient in the future. Uh I understand that you are in a partial permitting process. Um so I'm I'm going to give you the time, but if I if I see another case
like this, usually I don't give 90 days. Just be aware of that. Um but I'm going to give you it's not relative to when your season ends. You need to get whatever application you need in and you need to get the permits issued. So, if you need to get your lot split to get these permitted, you either need to get them appropriately permitted by the town
on or before the date that I'm going to give you, or you need to remove the ex the excess number cuz you've stood here and testified to me that there is a violation, get it resolved by the date I'm going to give you, and I'm being going to be a little bit more lenient than I will in the future should this recur on your property. I just want to be transparent with you that I'm giving
you more time than I otherwise normally do in these cases. >> Thank you, >> because they got you to hearing pretty pretty quickly. Uh, so in order to be reasonable in terms of your ability to comply, I want to make sure you have time to do that. Anything else you'd like me to hear? >> That's it. Thank you. >> All right. Anything further from the town?
>> No, ma'am. >> All right. In case C 2561, I've entered the town's evidentiary case file. I'll find based on the signed certified mail as well as the affidavit of posting that the town had good service for
today's hearing. I'm going to find based on the uh testimony of the code enforcement officer and the uh also the admission on the part of the respondent uh relative to the number of RBs on the site that the respondents in violation of section 92-010.
And I'm going to require you to comply with that code section on or before May 1st or face of 2026 or face a $200 day per day fine for each day that the violation continues >> to get a two or three day.
>> That's as good as I can give you, sir. The hear the the next hearing is May 4th, so I got to give you a compliance date before that. Uh so May 1st and that's again more time than I I usually give 30 days on these cases. So, I'm giving you uh way more than that. Um, if you don't bring the property into
compliance on or before May 1st, you're going to come back to me on May 4th for a fine assessment hearing. And that $200 per day fine will be assessed for each day that the uh excessive number of RVs remain on the
property after May 1st. So, um try to get in compliance by May 1st. That'll get you out of here. If you're not, then you're going to come back to me. Um, because I have found you in violation of the listed code section, the town's entitled to its administrative cost. So, I'm going to assess those in the amount
of that's 23405, right? Normal amount. 23405 for today's hearing. And those are payable within 30 days. >> All right. So, get uh get through the permit process before May 1st or you're going to be back here. >> Understood. >> And or the alternative is get them
removed. So, if you don't have the permits issued, get them get however many you're not allowed to have off the property before May 1st. >> Got it. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. And thank you for your patience uh and being the last case. >> You're welcome. Thanks, Mark. >> All right. Any no other cases, correct?
>> All right. Uh >> February, >> March 2nd. Yeah, March. >> February 18th. Yes. >> That is a little confusing on these agendas. >> I know. >> Going forward, you may want to not do that. Uh for the record, I did review the October 6, 2025 uh hearing minutes, and I did sign those. I'll give those
back to the clerk. And with that, I'll adjourn this hearing at 12:50. and