It's 10:03 by Verizon's time, so we can get started. My name is Amity Barnard. I'm the special magistrate for today's hearing. Uh, first thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to testify on any of the items on today's agenda, including town staff. So, if you're here for a code enforcement matter, if you could stand if you're
able, and raise your right hands for me. And let me ask uh procedurally to the clerk, is there anybody appearing virtually today? >> Um, no. Okay. Thank you. So, now that everybody is standing, uh, gentlemen, if are you here for code? Yep. Keep standing. Raise your right hands. You
got your right hands up. All right. Ma'am in the back with the black sweatshirt. Are you going to be speaking? >> She is our translator. >> Go ahead and get sworn as well. Thank you. Do you all swear from to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. You all may be seated. So, a little bit about process
for this morning's hearing. I believe these are all listed as violation hearings uh on today's agenda. So, when you hear your case called, um, town staff is sitting at the table in front of me. You will come to the podium that is here to my right, your left. Uh, the town will proceed first. They will
present any evidence they have, any documents that we they wish to be entered into the record. They will call any witnesses that they intend to call. Once the town has concluded its presentation, it will be your turn to present uh any evidence you've brought with you, either verbal testimony or written documentation. You have an
opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses that the town has called. And once I have heard uh both sides, I will make a final ruling and you'll get an order that reflects that ruling uh after the hearing today. So with that, keep in mind all of your testimony is given under oath and I will turn it to the
town to call his first case. Thank you. First item is Javar and Rosa Garcia, Tenants Listed Immaculate Ways, Inc. and Santana Equestrian Private Financial, Inc. address 1470A Road case number CE
2532 PCN number 41414317011060020 violations of town of Lacahuchi grows code of ordinances and ordinance number 2012-03 the violations resulting from a continuing occurrence the violations representing a serious threat to the public health safety and welfare and the
violations may be irreparable and or irreversible in nature I will turn this over to town staff. >> Good a good good morning. Getting ahead of myself there. Um actually I just want I'm Deanna Thomas. I have been sworn
code officer for the town of Lockxahhatche Groves. Um there is a scribner's error on the case number C25. It should say 26. I just want to bring that to your attention. Everything else is good.
Um, so I want to start by saying that this property um has been cited previously in the past um three other times uh for the same issue of the manure
livestock dumping and each time they have complied and brought it into compliance before the hearing. Um I'm sorry I my my error. We do have a order finding violation. So it this this
one that is current before you is actually a repeat violation. Um, and it um it violates the the Lockxahhatche Groves code of ordinances and ordinance
number 20-2012-03. Uh, the violation resulted from a continuing occurrence. The violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. and the violation may be irreparable or irreversible in nature. Due to the
severe nature and ongoing presence of the violation, no corrective action exists that would achieve compliance, complete compliance with the code. This particular tenant that is on the Garcia's property,
um we have been in contact with him. He has allowed us onto the property. There are pictures in the case file which I will provide to you um that show all the manure.
The piles are extremely high. I would say they're about 15 ft 20 ft in in nature and they are right up against the property line which is a violation of our code. Uh,
so in this case, the town is seeking a $5,000 fine for irreparable irreversible. >> Would you like to visit photographs? >> Yes, I would. >> Mr. Curt, is your microphone on? Because I'm not hearing you very well. Thank
you, sir. I'll try to remember to put it on and off. >> So, in the case file, uh in your case file, there are several pictures that show different ways from looking at
the property. Um the first one that I have is from the front access driveway looking south. >> Diana, could you share those with um Mr. Fields? Take him out of my hair. Then we have a view from public rightway
on a road as the property is the the manure is right up against the property line. This is another angle view from public right away on a road.
We also have a uh stop work order that was issued on 12225 for the manure. They have indicated that they have ceased that operation. However, pictures taken today, January
29th, 2026 at 7:43 a.m. Um it shows a lot more manure on the property. These are the pictures that were taken today. >> I've seen what's being shown to me for
the first time. So >> So let let me ask the town, are you intending to enter like you do in all the other cases? I've heard your entire evidentiary case file because it may be easier to have him look at the entire thing rather than just the photographs so that we can get the documents uh to the extent they need to be entered into
the record in if if that's okay with the town. Just so >> Okay. >> And then that way I can look at them as well while you're going through your explanation. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Can I address just one thing real quickly? >> So, hold on before you begin. Go to the
go to the podium for me, sir, and give me your appearance. >> Press the fields for the minutes. >> Okay. We I don't know if you've received it yet, but we've we have filed a motion to dismiss this claim as well as a motion to continue this hearing. I don't
know when you want to hear those arguments. This is very similar to the one you heard last Thursday. So I I and I I've given the motions to Jeff. Apparently, he didn't get them from last night, but I don't know when you want to have that heard. You want to let them
finish? >> Yes, sir. because I at least minimally have to find uh good service in order to do anything. So, I need to see the case file much like you heard me say at the the last hearing uh when you were here. So, I'll go ahead and ask the town to show you the case file that they're
intending uh to the to enter to the extent that there are notice documents in there that I need to look at. I did receive copies of two motions uh late yesterday which I have reviewed. Um so, I'll address that after I take a look at the notice.
All right, Mr. Mr. Fields. Uh, just so the record is clear, you represent who in this matter? >> I represent Santana Equestrian Private Financial Incorporated and Immaculate Ways Incorporated. >> And those are tenants on the property. Is that correct, sir?
>> Correct. >> Is the property owner present? >> Yes, ma'am. He is. >> He is, Mr. Garcia. >> All right, sir. And you're the translator for him? Is that correct? Okay. All right, let me ask, can the two of
you come up to the front here? Can you come up here and at least sit in the front here because we're guess we're going to have to kind of switch off and on with the microphones. So, go ahead and sit in the front rows for me. So, Mr. Fields, do you have any objection to the evidentiary case file that you were
just shown? >> I have no The only objection is it's the first time I've seen it, Judge. As far as what's in there, I don't know about the the photographs, and I need to speak with my client about the photographs, but other than that, I have no objection.
>> Okay. All right. Go ahead and take the time that you need with your client. Who is this gentleman? Can you come up to the podium for me? a copy of the motions to >> I have them. Thank you. >> Your name, sir?
>> Javier Garcia. >> Javier Garcia. And what is your name, ma'am? The translator. What's your last name? Okay. Let me ask uh the code enforcement officer if you can show Mr. Garcia
the evidentiary case file. So, ma'am, what I'm going to do is if you can explain to him, she's going to hand you that case file. If you can explain to him the I'll tell you what I'm going to ask him at the end, but I'm going to basically ask him to review those documents and tell me if he has any objection to the documents. Um, you
can go through them. The code officer will explain to you the documents. She'll give you time to pause to translate to him, and then I'll reconvene with you in a second once you're done looking. Okay. service notice of violation. Since the notice of violation, it's
contagious. or not position on December 19th from the public. >> This is a copy of the meeting. These pictures are taken from today.
You can see. So he's asking you know the difference between what's fresh and what has been there >> they I know they've been working on >> so so ma'am explain to him this is we can get into all of that but this is just about the documents so any
questions we can deal with the merits of the case once we get through the documents This is >> so are you on the other side now? >> Yeah. >> Very good. Thank you. >> This is showing that we >> certified mail.
>> This is a copy of the property appraiser. You as the owner the property >> any objection to the documents being entered into the record, sir? >> Yes. >> It's No. >> So, he's saying no objection to the
documents. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, that will allow me to look at the notice documents. Um, go ahead and continue to stand there and we'll I guess I'll have you switch switch sides. Um, so I have a couple of questions for the
code officer. So, you indicated in your testimony this is a repeat violation. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> A repeat violation of what prior code case? Case number 25504 00004.
The order assessing fine was uh recorded by you on July 7th, 2025. I can provide you with that. It was in violation of sections 30-43 and 30-44
and section 20-015 of the uldc of the code of ordinances. Um it is a repeat because of the fact that 30-43 and 30-44 the manure was on the rear of the
property. The manure now is on the uh east uh west side of the property right up against the property line >> and I can bring that to you. >> When did that case come into compliance?
Case 254004. >> They have not All right. Your notice of violation indicates a violation of ordinance 2012-03. What is that? >> I'm sorry. >> Your notice of violation indicates a
violation of ordinance 2012-03. What is that? That is that is an ordinance um that has not been codified. Um but it's
controlling with respect to uh manure uh disposal in town and >> she has that in. >> Do you have a copy of it in the file? >> Yeah, there should be a >> Is it in here? Okay. I didn't get that far back. All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> And that that ordinance requires u that a property which is receiving manure in the town um get a permit from uh the town uh and it has some
logistical requirements with respect to where manure may be placed. um the code officer and the town manager will testify um that there has been no application for the depositing of manure on that
site. um uh and therefore they are in violation of uh 2012-03 or 13, I can't remember which >> So I guess you're saying ordinance 2012 hasn't been
codified, but it's from 20 2012. Yeah, I don't have a I do not have a great explanation as to why that hasn't happened, but um it was passed in 2012, has been existing, and uh I think your
honor has actually dealt with cases under that ordinance previously. Can I see the copy of the prior order from case 254004? >> And can you show it to uh the respondents I guess before you show it to me please?
>> Yes ma'am. >> Violation has some time to Any objection to that being entered into the record from anybody? Without objection. >> Okay. Thank you.
Okay. I guess I'm not understanding the repeat violation. You didn't cite the same code sections in this notice of violation. So, how is that a repeat violation? The first of all the the there are several components to to this. Um
Mr. Garcia, the owner of the property and Mrs. Garcia, the owners of the property were the subject of the previous order. >> Um the essence of that order was that manure was being dumped on uh the site.
Um and so This citation has several components. First of all, the area that has um been used
uh for the manure dumping back in June. It was confined to the area on the eastern portion of the the property. um that has now been expanded to the
northern portion of the property and the western portion of the the property. In addition with respect to this violation um the lees and operators of the facility have been cited. Um so to them
it would be an initial violation. to the GarcAs. We believe it is a repeat violation of essentially the same matter, the dumping of manure and the failure to get a permit for um such violation.
Lastly, the areas that they have expanded the operation to um constitute a um an issue of irreparable
harm and danger to life, health, and safety in that they are approximate to open bodies of water. um they're within 200 feet of um open bodies of water and they are within 500 feet of
uh portable wells. There's a portable well on the site and there is a portable well um on the property to the the south, the Birkhart property. So those are uh those are the the
components of uh the violation. Um and it would be up to your honor as to whether or not this constitutes a repeat or a um initial violation. It would be an
initial violation as to the uh lasses since they were not previously the subject um uh they were not respondents in the original case. Um >> but but do you have an obligation under chapter 162 to notify the lees
>> do we have an obligation >> correct >> to in the initial case are you saying >> on any code enforcement case >> um no I don't think we are correct we do >> so it doesn't matter I don't think the law differentiates between whether it's
an initial violation of for the tenant or for the property owner the statute only requires you to address uh and and legally serve the property owner Correct. Um so uh we are asking uh for the relief
that would be um permitted and with respect to um an argument in the in the case the case that you heard last Wednesday which was
continued to February 18th. They were cited for a violation of chapter 175. Um, and they were not uh cited at that time um for the violation of uh the 2012
ordinance. Um although the facts and the subject of it um are the same in that there are huge piles of manure on the property. There
are different um code sections that have been violated. Um and so that's the reason for the the two different cases. the same facts constitute a violation of
um two different ordinances. And while we could have brought them at the the same time, um we initially uh went forward with the chapter 175 um violations in hoping to get an order
um to correct that violation. Um and uh at this point in time we are looking for an order of violation with respect to um the irreparable harm and danger to uh
life, health, safety. >> Do you have a copy of uh chapter 30-43 and 30-44 or >> can you pull it up and read it to me? And while he's looking at that, um, Miss Thomas, your notice of violation, it was
dated 12526. That's is that accurate? >> Yes. >> And the photograph that you have in here? >> Yes. That was on a Sunday. Yes. And this notice was sent out based on
the photographs that you have in the case file from December 19th, 2025. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Why was there a month delay in sending out the notice between when you took the photographs and when you sent the notice of violation?
>> Because it still represents the manure that is on the property. There is there's still piles of on the property. >> Okay. >> If I may >> um
>> do you want me to read >> if you could read it? Yeah, that would be helpful so that everybody hears. >> Sure. >> They're not very long sections is my recollection. Um this is uh from chapter 30 article two of our code of ordinances. Article two is dumping of
manure and horse bedding. Section 30-43 reads prohibited generally. It shall be prohibited for a property owner to permit the depositing of manure and horse bedding onto real property within the town except when the manure and horse bedding is being used by the
property owner for bonafide agricultural purposes. in appropriately limited quantities after obtaining a permit from the town. Um, and that is based on ordinance number 2010-3.
Um, section 30-44 permit. It shall be prohibited for any person to deposit manure and horse bedding on any property within the town regardless of the consent of the property owner unless such person and the property owner has obtained a permit
from the town confirming that manure and the horse bedding is to be used for bonafide agricultural purposes and in no case may the amount of manure and the horse bedding deposited exceed the amount set forth in the permit issued to the property owner by the town. The
determination of the appropriate quantity of manure and horse bedding for use for bonafide agricultural purposes shall be based upon uses and custom associated with the specific agricultural use on the property which may include recognized formulas of
government agencies or published studies. >> Okay. Thank you. And 2115 is just that's the permitted uses correct correct section of the code. So that that was a violation for prohibited use which was the deposit of
manure. Is that accurate? >> Yes. And the well the operating of a transfer station. >> Okay. >> Okay. And let me just So, Mr. Curts, you have copies of the
motions that were emailed yesterday late in the day. Is that correct? >> Yes. For some reason, I didn't get them in my email inbox, but I have been provided um them and I believe I understands the basics of the arguments.
>> All right. So, Mr. Fields, I'm going to give you a few minutes. I've read them. Uh I received them yesterday. I've read them, but I'll give you a few minutes to uh explain to me briefly. You know, they're 10 or 15 page motions, but if you want to go ahead and and uh give me a synopsis, that would be
helpful. This enforcement officer just testified and has been presented in your in the file that you just received. If you'll look, there's a soft work order an exclamation I think was dated December 22nd of 2025.
That applies to 25-64 which I was here just seven days ago. Made the same motion to continue our >> it was granted. They didn't give us the 30 days notice. They gave us a really short notice to be here the first time.
>> You've extended it. And after that extension, we went out. We took the town out to the town manager, town attorney, and the code enforcement officer showed them around. Right. And since that time, my client has been working to remove the material. So, we've been doing what we
said we would do. So, we were looking at that being the next continuence. Then, this matter pops up. I filed a motion to dismiss this matter because if you look at it, the allegations in this matter are based upon the same set of
facts, right? Same set of facts. And even in their in their file, they put the same stopboard order that was as in 25-64. It's an identical set of facts. And you have a government that's now trying to
charge us for two separate violations, right? Two separate violations. I mean, two separate cases for the same alleged violation. It's a violation of our due process both substantively and from a time to respond procedurally. If you
look at what they've done, they're trying to add an additional uh ordinance. It's the manure composting issue that we've been addressing. We've been addressing the issue with the state. It's the same set of facts. So now
instead of citing us under in the original case with that code section, >> which they could have sought to amend, they haven't done that either, right? They're we're defending two separate cases, which is improper, right? Totally improper. So we would ask that that one
be dismissed and proceed with the other one. It it's it's the same argument. But if you look at whether or not it's a repable harm, I I call your attention going back to the first case. They didn't say irreparable harm. In the first case 2564,
we had um we were requested to come into compliance, which again we asserted to your honor, we asserted to the town that we were going to do that. We haven't heard that we haven't been removing. We're removing roughly three truckloads of this material each day. The
photograph she has. So there's not any testimony that's a new ins bringing in of any new material. We're trying to get it moved into in the facility into the trucks to get them out. So there's been nothing we told you last week has
changed. So we would ask you to dismiss this current one which is 20 26-32 >> because it's the same thing. >> Okay. >> And and from an irrevocable harm perspective, your honor,
>> again, they said that it was um we to work on it and we've been working on it. Now they're saying it's irreable the same. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that it's you need to clean it up, which we're doing, but then say it's irreparable and say you now now
you have to get this $5,000 fine. You have to get punished even higher because it's irreparable. And there's been no showing it even irrepable. So again, I I I know that's a factual issue, but I'm saying it from a procedural due process
perspective and substantive due process. You can't you can't sue us twice, right? throw it all into one. Throw it all into one. Let's have the one hearing. We'll have an evidentiary hearing. We'll you'll make that decision, right? >> But number two, >> procedurally, you give me three days
notice and and I I reached out to the town. I tried to I tried to say, why don't we why don't we push this all back to the next hearing? So, if you guys really want to go forward with this, any of the time to be able to prepare at this point, three days notice is just
fundamentally unfair. So with those two arguments, that's the summary. >> Okay. Thank you. Does the town have a response? >> Uh once again, your honor, the the
previous case um that was cited that you heard uh last week and continued until February 18th um was a violation of chapter 175. Um um there are
couple ways that you can remedy a a 175 violation. You can return the property to its pre-development stage by removing all the the manure. Um or you can submit a
plan um and go through engineering uh to make sure that the drainage on the property is equivalent on a pre-development and a post-development basis. Um my understanding of the way
the um property owner and the lei want to address that uh 175 violation is by removing the materials and returning it to a pre-development state.
That's perfectly okay. Um and that can be a remedy to that. The situation that we have here is that the positing of the manure in proximity to the wells um the
wells and the open bodies of water uh does constitute a separate violation and that's what we neglected to do um as a part of the original um or the hearing that you had last week. Um, and it was
your honor that um made the point um that this was not cited as a um repeat violation. It was not cited as um a violation for irreparable
um harm or a violation that constitutes um life, health, safety um welfare uh implications. and uh therefore the decision was made to recite them.
Same factual circumstances, we understand that. But it is a different code section and it has to do with the placement of manure without a without a permit um which constitutes the violation. um and the irreparable nature
of it has to do with the proximity of the manure to these bodies of water and um the portable water wells. The testimony um that you will will hear
if we continue on with this case is that the original location um um where the uh which constituted the violation that you found back in June or July uh was
confined to the um eastern portion of uh the property. Um that is also in accord with um an application and a report that they have filed with the uh the state of
Florida for a registration application. Um and subsequent to that time the uh there has been a great expansion of the deposits on the site both to the onto
the northern portion of the property and to the western portion of the property and on the eastern portion of the property um the deposits have encroached right up to the property line. Um uh so it was those extreme circumstances
um which you can view in the pictures in the in the file that we believe constitute um a violation of our codes and uh we think that those uh violations
are irreparable um because of the proximity uh to the uh the bodies of water. respond just the body support. >> Yeah. Let me just ask while before I give you that opportunity, can can you can the town somebody from the town find
me a copy of the entire ordinance 2012-03? This is just every other page in this case file. So it looks like >> not back. >> No. So I need pages. I need the even number pages. If you could >> find that. But go ahead, Mr. Fields.
>> Um Mr. G just made an assertion regarding the body of water. We were here last time. It would be my motion my motion to address the same points that the 200 feet the 200 foot um body of water issue and 500 foot of a water well
was in the last hearing. It's in the it's in this all these issues were in that last case and continue to be in the last case and the material that's on site has not increased since we were here last. It's all it's all the same
material. It's in the same location except for us moving some of it away so that we can get it scooped up, put it into a hauler and haul the material away. That's the only movement that there's been as far as irrearable harm.
Again, they were here last time. They're now they're saying that you mentioned it during the hearing, but when they were here last time and when they cited us, they did not sight us for repable harm. They did not believe it was a regable
harm at that point. So this is again an escalation through a new case of a claim that existed that is currently pending before you and as you will recall and again I apologize but as you will recall we are working with the department of
the department of health because of the house bill 211 where there's been a modification and an expansion of what my client can do with the property. You're going to have to make that. You're going to have to hear that. But it's not proper for us today. And I've never seen
in 36 years someone tack on a new case with the same set of facts. So with that, I I I could take all day. I don't appreciate it. >> I appreciate your acknowledgement of that. I know these can get uh can get a little
complicated. I I just so everyone's aware of of where I'm sitting at this moment, I have less of an issue with with a resuscitation of the same or similar facts as were alleged in the prior case that I saw you a week ago or or however many days ago now that was
for the FDA violation. I have more of an issue with the fact that this appears to be an additional citation for something that there remains a running fine as we sit here today. Um, I'm not sure 2012-03 as I'm reading this ordinance appears to
require a permit for the deposit of manure, but that's exactly what the prior order found the respondent in violation. Is am I missing something there? The the argument that uh our argument is
that when you look at the the property, there has been an expansion of the the dumping to areas um that for example
when when the uh property the original location of the dumping um that was probably more than 200 feet away from um collecting canal or I'm sorry a-ro
canal um when they moved the operations or extended the operations um and dumped on the western portion of the property. Now those materials are um
within 200 ft of collecting canal. Um at the time that um they were cited in June, we did not um know where
um the Birkhart's portable water well was. um that came to our attention when uh the department of health um gave us a a report. And now you have a situation
in which um the area that is the subject of the fine is is within 500 ft of a um portable water well on another person's property. >> Where is that 500 feet delineation
coming from? Can I just a quick objection? He's testifying. He's not even answering your question. He's testifying. >> I I'm gonna allow him to continue. I appreciate your objection, but I'm going to allow him to continue. I'm just I'm trying to understand how this case is different from the prior case. So, that's helpful in my determination as it
relates to your motion to dismiss. >> Opposition is going to be yes, not because we're not being fined. >> I I know I I've I've got your motions. I I know where where you're headed and I've heard your testimony this morning and your arguments this morning. >> Well, the only different argument was
that we're being Mr. Garcia is being fined for dumping manure on the property. It's not where it is on the property. >> That's what I'm trying to get. That's exactly why I'm trying that's why I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to understand that. Okay, let me go get that.
So this section 8 of this ordinance says that part of the town's review confirms through property site drawing or layout that the manure and horse bedding will not be dumped dumped within 50 ft of the property line or within 75 ft of any well on the property. I'm not seeing a 500 foot delineation.
the the 500 foot delineation um comes from uh state regulations on the subject. Um and so it doesn't necessarily go to the violation, it goes to the irreparable nature of the violation.
Do me a favor. Go get our permit application. >> The receiver permit. Get the receiver permit form. Can you show Mr. uh Garcia as well, please?
and that two or just the just these? >> Those two. >> Okay. And any objection from either side? On behalf of the tenant, I do object because the predicate has not been established on those and the numbers and the distances and the measurements that has not been established and I think that was
prepared by the PP or did we go? So again, as far as just pictures, I have no objection to the aerial photographs, circles, the squares, etc. There's been no credit for that and I do object that. >> Okay, Mr. Garcia, any objection from Mr.
Garcia to these documents being entered into the record. >> This permit is in 2012 and it says it right there. They didn't fill this permit out. >> There it is. >> And it matches this.
I just want you to have it. >> Okay. All right. So, the record is very clear the ordinance, >> Mr. Curts. You didn't >> Did I steal something? >> Did you steal my ordinance? Maybe not. Let me just make sure I didn't
motion. No, >> that's >> this is the odd pages. It was stapled together. >> Couldn't have gone far. You don't have it over there. No, this is it. Here it is. This is it. Thank you. All right. So, the record is
clear. I'm going to admit over objection. Um, in addition to the town's evidentiary case file, let me just ask the town to confirm. I was handed a stapled copy. This is the identical case file that you have in front of you. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And that was shown to respondent. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. So, I'm going to enter that
into the record as composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'm going to add to the case file both a copy of ordinance 2012-03. Uh, and because you only looked at the odd pages, any objection to the full
copy of pages 1 through 7 being entered? Mr. Garcia, any objection to the full ordinance being entered into the record? Thank you. And then I'm going to also mark I'm going to enter the ordinance as uh
let me redo these. Let me do composite exhibit. T1 will be the main case file. T2 will be uh ordinance 2012-03. And I'll admit that without objection. And then I will mark uh these two additional
aerial photographs with distance measurements as uh composite exhibit T3. And I'll admit those over objection of both respondent and uh respondent tenants council. So Mr. Curts, what are what is T3
showing? you >> this >> um T3 is showing 200 ft of where the 200 ft
dimensions are in the 500 foot circle from where the um the middle of the property where the or where's uh the uh manure deposited. So women who are being deposited over here now brings it within
200 feet there just that just shows it and we can supplement that testimony with using um the aerials from Papa measuring tool that is available
there. um if the respondents or um have really contest that their manure is um outside of those 200 500 foot limits. Be happy to to do that um visually
through the um property appraisers website u and demonstrate the proximity. Uh quite frankly, I don't think that's a factual issue, but if it's being contested, we'll be happy to put on testimony and demonstrate that
to your honor. I'm I'm still not uh comfortable on the ordinance. I I don't understand the applicability of the distance separation requirements. You cited them for for not having a permit for the deposit of manure in this case. That's the same
violation that's running in the 254004 case. So, how is this not a new case for the same thing that a daily fine of $250 I think is what I read is $100 a day is running.
I think since that since the the June case um there has been um an expansion of the activities um to bring it to the western portion of the property which brings it um closer
to collecting canal. Um, >> but where in this ordinance does it say that that can't occur? This ordinance just says you have to have a permit. >> The manager would like to >> elaborate. >> Were you swarm sworn in? >> Yes, I was.
>> All right. Can you state your name for the record and then proceed? >> My name is Francine Ramli. I am the town manager for the town of Moxahache Groves. The cotification of the ordinances related to haulers and there are four of them. The one in 2012 which
is 2012-03 is only one of the ordinances that is not codified. What is codified is the town's ability to regulate solid wa um solid waste and livestock waste is
special waste which is included in the definition of solid waste. Those ordinances were used to regulate um haulers and receivers.
And that ordinance section three discusses receivers. Additionally, there is a permit for receivers, a property owner permit for receivers. And if you filled that permit
out, that permit would say how far you have to be from water. And second of all, that permit has to be approved by the town manager. And so um I cannot speak to the lack of
that codification either because as you know it predates my tenure. However, I can speak to uh the practice of looking at receiver sites and also measuring distance using the measuring tool on
Papa um to open water bodies. and we have been in front of this um magistrate with that same issue using this ordinance.
So, Mr. Curts is actually saying to you that one, we did not know where the Birkart's permit was. And by the way, the Birkharts were the people who complained. They complained about noise. I'm sorry. They complained about smell
and they complained about the manure and the traffic. We um did not know where that wellhead was. The if there had been a permit filled out, there would have had to be a
confirmation of where the wellhead was. We later were informed by the health department, as Mr. curse already said, so I'm getting it into the testimony by me that the Burke cart's well is clearly within these limits. Second of all, I
can tell you visually when this issue started, they were on the back half of the property. They were nowhere near the front part of the property. Not that we are trying to do any kind of dual regulation. However, we were provided
information from the health department um that is included in our files and I think it was just agreed to be allowed into the record that shows us that on I think their second or third inspection
that the new piles are um too close to an open water source on the front end which is 200 ft from collecting canal. There's also an open body of water. We're not looking at the aerials above
us, but this triggered those facts that I just mentioned trigger an additional issue beyond just the permitting that cause an irreparable and irre irreparable and
irreplaceable harm to the property. that was not specifically known at the time that there was a violation um made for entered into the record in June for the
um use of the property unpermitted use of the property for um the um manure. So that is how this all ties together. I would further also add that um the town
had previously proposed a stipulation agreement and so on and so forth. So none of this is unknown to the um um the
lessor and and his um um um attorney. So the basis of the distance is from the Florida administrative code section 62-71.30
30 which if you wish I can give you uh if it's not already into the record that is the basis for our permitting we are not trying to double regulate we are trying to follow our own process with
the additional information we were only at this time able to better follow our process so hopefully that helped you and I'm willing to answer any questions and I'm sorry for any Repetition. This this ordinance I just I'm not
making a connection here. Um this ordinance says that that they have to have a permit. It says each day a violation remains and each hall for which there is no permit constitutes a separate violation, but that fine is already running in this case.
So I and I don't I'm not seeing I hear the testimony about this distance separation, but I don't see that you've cited anything that requires or that prohibits them from being within so many feet of those water bodies. That's what I'm not seeing in how you've
cited this. Um the uh in 2012, the 2012 ordinance um has a prohibition
um uh uh it has a prohibition um concerning 75 ft from a wellhead and um 50 feet from a property line. Um
the expansion of the uh the dumping to the rear of the to the uh eastern portion of the property um is now well within 50 ft of the property line.
I know. That's why I brought it to you. That's why I said somebody needed to get the permit and look. for one brief second just talk about that one issue reading. >> Go ahead. Um let me ask you to stand up
so they get you on the recording. >> Yes. >> In the 2564 notice of violation, there was an accompanied note or letter that went with it. And in that document itself again for the current violation they
specifically referred to the um the prior town code ordinances of 30-43 and 30-44. They've incorporated Mr. Garcia's prior case into 25-64.
And that again that's what's currently pending. And to say that they had no idea what was going on, I can I again that would be cross-examination. But to just to take that position prior to the last hearing,
it is there's just no factual support for that because there were we've even had the meeting with the D where that picture came from. There's probably some pictures in your file from the DP where they've talked about these mounds being high and the amount of
material on there. So to say that they didn't know it before the last hearing is not really credible. So with that, I'll leave it. I don't want to get into a tit for tat or a bicker back and forth. Happy to have it under cross-examination, but at the end of the
day, it's exactly what they've done. They file there's a current violations for Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia has to pay an an amount because of the violation until it comes into compliance. It's the same violation although they say it's been
exceed grew. It's the same violation. That growth is what's my clients being addressing in 2564 and my client was noticed to be here again today for the same violation. So again, respectfully, it is a double it's
a double take. They're suing us twice for the same activity and I'll be quiet. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Your honor, I want to clarify something in my last testimony >> and that is that prior to the last hearing,
>> the town provided a stipulation agreement to >> her. >> I understand that, sir. Provided a stipulation agreement. >> That's in the order of settlement. I don't want you to testify about that. >> I'm not going to. But what I am saying
is that meeting was continued and therefore a lot of our conversation today is relative to not having
finished that particular matter. So I wish to clarify my statement where I said that the um property owner and the tenant were aware
of the situation. That is what I wish to clarify. >> Okay. And yes, we were aware of the pictures from the health department and FD because we were speaking to them all along
and the property owner and the tenant were also aware of that. So, I just wanted to clarify that. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Curts, or any additional response to what Mr. Pields
just said? No, I think it the be appreciated if you would rule on the motion for continuence or dismissal and then uh we can either move forward with the case or or not at this point. All right.
I understand the town's arguments uh as it relates to the expansion of operations, but I haven't heard anything that gives me the authority to proceed on the same exact code sections uh for another violation. So, I I'm I I don't think I'm not comfortable with
that. And I'm also very uncomfortable with the fact that the town is is indicating to me that this is irreparable and irreversible and relying in this case on photographs taken December 19th, but that wasn't noticed until January
2025, giving the respondent 3 days and 4 days notice of today's hearing despite having photographs from uh December 19th. Um, so I don't, you know, Mr. Fields's motion to dismiss as as it's as it relates to the other case that has to do
with the FDA violation. Um, I'm going to deny both his motion to dismiss uh and motion to continue it continue that I received and reviewed prior to this hearing. Um, but I am going to dismiss this case because I the property owner has already been found in
violation of sections 30-43, 3044, and 20-05. And those are the identical sections that are uh dealt with in ordinance 2012-03. So, this is and the testimony before me this morning is that the prior case 254004
has not come into compliance, so the fine remains running. Uh, this is the exact violation for failing to have a permit for uh the manure that's been deposited. So, um, with that, I'm going to dismiss 26-32,
uh, having found that there is already a running fine, a daily fine for this violation. And I'll have an order that reflects uh, it'll be a combined order that that both, unless you have strong objection, both uh, denies your motions and also dismisses outright.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, your honor. Yeah, let me give it all to you as one thing. One, two, so you can keep all this together.
Oh, this is the missing here. You keep all that together. Thank you. Go ahead with the next case whenever the town is ready. >> Next case is Aramus Lopez Jr. Javar Vega Len Leonardo Vega Juan Lopez address
1316B Road case number SE 2640 PCN number 414143 17012050010 violation town of Lacahuchi Grove's code of ordinance and ordinance number 2012-03 the violation resulted from a continuing occurrence the violation presents a
serious threat to the public health safety and welfare and the violations may be irreparable or irreversible in nature. >> Code officer Deanna Thomas previously been sworn. >> Uh this case is in reference to manure
livestock waste being on the property being dumped on the property. Um there have been previous cases uh on this same property.
Uh the most recent one was uh in August of 25 where they were cited for a it was a complaint about a working nursery. Um, but large
piles of manure were on the property and there was not a permit for a manure transfer station on file and there appears to be more manure uh that could be found and spread among the property.
That case was complied as uh code officer John Suarez uh walked the property with Mr. Leonardo Vega and everything was removed from the property.
Since then, we are at today's hearing um where there is manure on the property and I have pictures in the file that show that um I did have service. I do have
service. Um, I posted the property with the notice of violation. Um, I spoke to Mr. Leonardo Vega yesterday via phone. Uh, he asked about his notice of violation, notice of hearing. We spoke about the previous
case and now I explained to him that his tenant has more manure on the property. Again, this is within a distance of 200 f feet of an open body of water which uh
consists to the property to the north. Plus, there is also a well on the property. So, he's within the 500 ft of the well. Um I'd be happy to share a copy with you
after show it to Mr. uh Leonardo Vega. Okay, that's fine. If you're done with your testimony, if you can show him the >> Yeah. >> Oh, this is Yeah. Up on the screen is uh Mr. Vega's property
>> if I I know I'm short. I'll try do best I can. >> Might need to take the mic up there. >> Oh, thank you so much. >> Yeah. I guess. >> Okay.
>> You could Where's the body of water that you're talking about? >> Okay. The red line up at the top is his property line. Just So >> go a little to the left up.
>> All right. So >> right there, there's a pond right there. >> Okay. So >> from where his his >> from where the manure livestock waste lays to that body of water is within the two. >> I see that. If you
>> there's a measuring >> on the property. >> Thank you. >> There's a well within that area. So >> well, >> if we could zoom out a little bit, it might be easier to see. >> I can't see the zoom out tool. Remember,
I can't see the Where's the zoom out? Zoom out. I can't see. Thank you. Sorry everybody. I cannot see from this distance to the screen. Forgive me.
Okay. Now I will show you with the measuring tool. This is what you're talking about, Deanna. Right here. >> Yes, Dan. >> Okay. Okay, I'm going to go to the top edge of it and I'm going to measure to here.
>> Okay. Can you read that for everyone? >> It says total distance 155.139 ft. >> Okay. And can you measure um the width and depth of that lot? >> This lot or this lot?
>> The lot that this is subject property. Okay. >> Yep. Okay. >> 829.39 ft. >> 635.812 ft. So,
if you can measure from the I guess the bottom of the dirt or pile area down because it's obviously what's that measurement?
>> 403.082 ft. Okay. Do you want to get your evidentiary case file? You want to show that to the respondent? What's your name, sir? >> Yeah, Lunardo Vega. >> All right. So, you're a property owner. >> She's going to show you the evidentiary
case file that they're going to ask me to look at and that they're going to ask me to enter into the record. If you could take a look at those documents and let me know if you have any objection. Yeah. No. No objection. No objection, sir. All right. With that, in case C 2640, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case
files composite exhibit one without objection. Can I see your case file, please? >> Yes, ma'am. >> I have a copy. >> Okay. And this is identical to what is in your uh case file there? >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> And what is the town seeking in terms of remedy today? >> What we are seeking um there's additional testimony they'd like to enter first from the town manager. >> Okay. Very good. Okay.
So yeah, go ahead and do that. Call any witnesses that the town is going to hear before I turn it over to respondents. >> Um, Miss Ramaya, um, in your role as the town manager,
uh, do you review any recipient manure recipient permits? >> I am supposed to. Yes. If they are submitted, I review and sign them. >> Um, have you seen an application for a
permit to receive manure with respect to this particular site? >> No, I have not. >> U, therefore, it's fair to conclude that you haven't issued a permit for that. >> That is correct. >> When you review those permits, do you
take into consideration uh the distance from open bodies of water and portable water wells? Yes, I do. >> And what are the distances that are relevant to you when you're making that review?
>> I have at least three distances that I'm concerned about. One is the setback, the other is to the wellhead and the other is to open body of water. And if I can ask um
for Miss Gardner Young to hand me back my permit, I will read off the permit what those distances are. Dumping an application is prohibited within 50 ft of property boundaries.
That's a setback. And 200 ft of a private wellhead or water source. 300 if the private water source is downs slope of the application site and 500 ft of a community well/water source such as
a canal. Those numbers are not necessarily the same numbers as the Florida Administrative Code. And because they are not, I also look to the Florida Administrative Code. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Before you
give me those numbers, where did the numbers that you just recited come from? Are those in the >> I believe that the prior management company used the best management practices that were issued by um either FD or
FDACS. I believe that's where they came from. Um, but I also go to the Florida Administrative Code. And in the Florida Administrative Code,
what it says in 62-71.3O on prohibitions, I'm going to read one, I'm sorry, 2B, which states it cannot be within 500 ft of an existing or approved portable
water well unless storage or disposal takes place at a facility for which a permit application was filed. blah blah. And I'm also going to read 2E for the sighting and that is it's prohibited
within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water unless storage or disposal takes place at a facility for which a complete permit application was filed. So, I prefer to use the Florida
Administrative Code because this is what is enforced by FD and the Department of Health. And we are doing this or my belief of my ability to do this is under Florida
statute 403 um which is incorporated in our section 38 on solid waste with regard to regulating um solid waste.
And um why do you consider um location of manure within uh 200 feet
of an open body of water or 500 ft of a portable water well. um uh to be of serious concern to the health, safety and welfare of the public andor um
irreparable harm. >> It's protection of the water supply. Virtually the entire town is on well and septic. So therefore the runoff and the lee from
livestock waste unless it is properly um lined or um managed with an alternate means of drainage um risks contamination of our water
supply. And I have recently been quoted about this in the newspaper. >> I don't have any other questions for the witness. >> All right. Any other witnesses that the town intends to call? >> No. >> Okay. Can I ask Miss Thomas for a copy of that ordinance again? Can I have that
copy back and I'll ask that you replace it in the other file or maybe you have it in this case file as well cuz I don't see it in my copy. Am I missing it? >> You need the full copy? >> Yeah, the full copy, please.
>> All right. Your name, sir? The other gentleman that stood up? >> Yes. >> Javier Vega, also owner. >> Also owner. And you were sworn at the beginning? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. All right. All right. And now uh let me ask before I hear from you gentlemen, let me ask what the town is seeking in
terms of remedy. Today >> we are seeking um an order finding a violation and that the um penalty imposed be that it is irreparable
um which would be a fine of uh $5,000. One of the things that we have um encountered with this particular violator is the idea of we will cite them um give them an opportunity to
uh comply. the code officer does um and they remove the they remove the material um prior to us getting a hearing in front of uh you so that there is not an order out there
which would constitute a repeat violation uh and uh then later on they resume the activity um and we go through another citation process. So what we would like is an order finding violation with a
substantial fine for the irreparable uh nature of the the violation um and uh an order prohibiting them from uh future violation so that they can u be cited um as a repeat
violator once they get this cleaned up. >> All right. Thank you. And then um let me ask Miss Thomas, in your initial testimony, you indicated that this property has been through code enforcement before. Are there any prior orders that I or any other magistrate
has issued on this property for this uh violation? >> No, because he uh complied before the time frame given. >> All right. So that's what you were talking about. In August of 25, there was a case initiated, a specified time given, and compliance was achieved prior
to that time frame. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right, gentlemen. You've heard what the town is saying. Go ahead uh and explain to me what's going on. >> Yeah. So, we're we're a little confused because that area you're seeing right there right over here.
>> We we can we came into compliance back in September. Uh that hasn't changed. We haven't been dumping anymore. In fact, that site was never a dump site. So, we did fix it. They said the mine was too high and we cleaned it up. But that's uh 90% chips and 10% manure. But we haven't
been added any more to it. So we're just kind of confused that if we went into compliance back in September, what changed for us to now be in violation? Like nothing has changed in that property. Now, we do have small mounds that we use in our we have a tree nursery. We we pot trees. We transplant
them. So we will have small mounds that we use to pot our plants. And I have pictures to show you the the size of those mounds if you want to look. So show them to show give them to the code enforcement officer and she'll show them to the town attorney first before I look at them. Is that everything you have that you have? >> I got more. >> Go ahead and give her everything so I
can look at everything at once. >> More than >> you. Should I wait for them to look? Keep going. Your own. >> No, you can keep speaking. That's fine. >> So now the interesting thing is that they I guess they contacted the Florida Department of Health back in uh 20 the 23rd of January. I guess filed a
complaint about what was going on. The complaint was received and they assigned an inspector Glenn Zyo to come out and look at the property. And I just want to quickly read what he found. He says, "On-site complaint investigation was conducted by Inspector Glenn Zyo. Horse
bedding was observed to be spread on the ground covering an area of around 50 ft by 150 ft, which is to be used for planting sugarcane. The property is being used as a nursery zone for agricultural and the horse bed and is being used as a soil amendment for
normal farming operations. Since the product is being used on site for farming, this does not consult storage of solid waste. The complaint is determined to be invalid. So, we're confused if if they're not having an issue with this we're looking at right here. Why does the town of Walk Hatch
have an issue with it? Okay. I mean, this is coming straight from the Florida Department of Health. >> Yeah. Two days ago. >> Okay. >> What uh do those photographs that you gave to the town, are they dated photographs? >> Um those are pretty recent, I would say. Man. Yeah. Oh, okay. He took them this
morning. >> They were from today. Okay. >> You'll see the mound is very small and we use it. It's not like it sits there for years. We're moving it. We're planting plants with it. Does the town have any objection to those additional documents being asserted?
>> And can we submit this as well or the Yeah. >> Yes. Give it to the town to look at. Please you look at that. >> It's John Suarez on behalf of the town of Lockachi Groves. Those pictures, Mr. Vega, are they from the middle of the nursery? Not necess.
>> Yeah. Okay. So those most of those are from the middle. Yeah. No, >> that paperwork that he just said down on the corner there. >> So, madam, I just want to clarify that um most of our photos that were in violation from the rear of the property,
not the middle of the property were the photos he just handed in. And so, yes, they took away most of the manure back in the prior case. >> Well, just so before you continue so I understand, what do you mean when you say rear? on that side. The left, the top, the
left, the right, or the bottom is the rear. >> It's the red circle. >> It's the red like horseshoe half a horseshoe where the middleware is, >> the brown pile. >> So, Mr. Suarez, that's what you're
calling the rear of the property. >> So, yes, that's where uh the back tenant is. And most of those pictures are from the middle of the property. >> Okay. >> All right. Does the town have any objection to these additional documents, photographs, and this email correspondence?
>> I I do not, but I've got some questions about them. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll do the easy part first. So, with that, I'll enter the town. I've entered the town's uh evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll enter the respondents. I'll mark it uh as composite exhibit R2.
And I'll enter these. Uh, one, two, three, 15 photographs as well as four pages of email correspondence. I'll enter that as uh, composite exhibit R2 without objection. All right. Go ahead and continue, sir,
with your testimony, and then I'll give Mr. Girtz an opportunity to ask you any questions he has. No, >> that that's pretty much it. I mean, I know that one of the pictures they sent us of that mound, I guess, that they're talking about where it's flattening out that short horseshoe type shape. It was very dark in the picture to to be honest, you can't even make out what it
is, but we submitted the other pictures because in their complaint, it shows that little mound that I I shared with you. Um, that I guess had an issue with that as well. I just want to clarify that's a small mound used for normal farming. >> So this photograph that you handed me >> Yeah. >> is this the same as that brown area on
the aerial. Where is this mound? >> So that would be somewhere around >> Okay. >> I guess for some reason they they had an issue with it so they submitted it as a picture. >> Okay. But that flat area, just to be clear,
that hasn't been touched for like two years. So we we did have it higher. We removed it to get into compliance, but it hasn't been touched since. Yeah. So we don't understand why all of a sudden it's become a reissue. >> What's the town's response to that? He's
essentially telling me that you complied the case out. The pile hasn't moved. That's his testimony. And now we now it's been recited. Where is the location of the piles that you cited him for? >> Near the parking lot back. >> That's in the picture that he is talking about dated January 6
>> on on that aerial. >> Can you show us where it's located? Maybe John will be able to reach. Yes. So the the piles that you saw and you took photographs of and are the subject
of your testimony are located within that brown area on the rare on the aerial. Is that correct? >> Okay, >> this is one second. Yeah. >> Go ahead, Mr. Curts. >> Um I'm sorry, Mr.
>> Leonardo Vega. >> Mr. Vega, >> um have you have you or your tenant applied um to the town for a permit to receive manure on your property? >> We haven't because we didn't feel we
were a depot for manure. We we weren't It's not like our business is to deposit and sell or to do something. So that's why we we weren't sure why would we need a permit if we're not depositing manure on our site. >> Okay. So you have not applied for a permit. >> No.
>> No. Okay. Um and those pictures that you submitted um show manure on your property as of today. Correct. >> Yes. You're talking about the small piles of horse ben. Yes. Well, and when
you say small piles, um the fair approximation of the height of that is what? Six feet >> maybe. Yeah, maybe like six feet. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But like I said, it doesn't stay there. It's used for for operation. So, it's it's it's being moved constantly. It's
what we use to potter plants. >> And did you want to say something, sir? >> Yeah. >> Come to the podium and give me your name. And you were you were sworn, right? >> Yeah. What's your name? >> My name is Saro. I am tenant. I live in the house over there on the road. >> Spell your last name for me. >> Guys.
>> Okay. Go ahead. Uh so this tree they were on the property about three days ago, four days ago and they look at the they look at the people the pile was manure spread out about um about feet and a half some parts maybe two feet and
they see and they saw it because I talked to them twice um there was no dumping manure that's a old manure over a year and a half or three years old they came to the property they said everything was fine. They closed the case in September and now they coming
they coming back again with the same thing. No was no manure added to the property >> and they agree with me both of them. >> Mr. Guzo. >> Yeah. >> Is that May I cross-examine? >> Go ahead.
>> Um Mr. Guzo, uh do you have are you in the um hauling b manure hauling business? >> Manure. Yes. For 20 years. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And they take it to nurseries where people need it, where people use it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Have you used that um site as an area to
store piles of manure >> in the past? Yes. And you you site me? You you told me and here and the t of you told me to not do no more. We didn't do no more. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The manure that is on on the site is that manure that you drop off to that
property. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Um were you aware of uh the requirement that any receiver property in town needed a permit from the town? >> Um I was aware. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. Um but let me tell you something. Um we are nursery there. It's over 15 acres of nursery. They use the manure there. They use every day like like other people too. Many other people they call it waste. We call it manure.
>> Um and uh to your knowledge uh does that property have a manure receiver um permit from the town? >> Uh I know I didn't I didn't know. I didn't know. No.
Um, but you do understand that's an obligation upon the property owner and and the manure hauler to make sure that there is a receiver permit. Correct. >> I do understand now. >> But very clear they were in September and the two times that they came before
this past week, both of inspectors, they were in the property and they saw there was no manual added and in September they closed a case and now they come in again with the same thing. When when the inspectors were there in September, was there any manure in that brown pile? There >> was a lot more manure and they make us
to remove it. We don't >> And you removed it all the time. >> Like I said, we leave in some parts maybe two feet, in some parts a feet and a half. >> Well, that's not removed then. >> No, we leave it because we use on the farm. So, no, no, was not completely removed. But in September when they
came, they look, he came, he looked at it, he said it's fine as it is right now. Actually right now it's less in Septe September because manure is going down down down down down down is this composting and we're using the nursery. Okay.
>> And again for no reason they came again again like it's like harassing. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, and real quick and my other issues that this whole thing, I know they're I keep dwelling on the whole permit. I don't know if that's something that's new, but those little
piles that we had, we've had them for a while. We've been running our business for a while, small family-owned business, but when we got when they told us in September, hey, you're you're good. There's no issues. They never say, hey, you need a permit or anything like that. So, I'm not too sure why that's such a big deal in this hearing if it's
being kind of brought up. It wasn't in the previous case. In fact, we were we we felt we were in complete compliance and all of a sudden now this is showing up. >> Well, the prior case was for not having a permit for the deposit of manure or is that not accurate?
>> No, the prior case was for 10 acre working nursery um large piles of manure on the property. >> What was the >> And there's not a permit for uh manure. Uh I'd have to look that up. But for the same thing as what the bar
case >> okay >> so the removal of the manure would have eliminated the need for the permit but there is an ongoing um use of the property as a manure deposit site. The ordinance 20123 is
clear um that regardless of the use of the property, you are supposed to get a permit from the town. Um as a part of that process, the location of the manure dumping would be reviewed to make sure that it is compliant with um the town
and DP regulations. Um uh and uh the use of this man manure may be appropriate in an appropriate location if they file for a uh if they
get a permit. Um >> but the issue today is there's no permit. >> There's no permit. evidence on the record that there is manure on site and there's no permit >> and and that the um the manure deposit lies within 500 ft of a portable well
and 200 feet of that open body of water. >> Okay. But it's not necessary for me to get into those findings. That's an evaluation that's done by during permit review. Correct. That's not right. >> Necessarily within my perview. That's part of the permit application and review process.
>> Okay. Sorry, just add something real quick. Uh, so I know there was a law uh HB I think 211 had passed protecting uh farmers and it mentions that uh it says that chapter 2025-136
strengthens Florida agricultural protections by preventing local governments from restricting the collection, storage, processing, and distribution of farm products on bonafide agricultural land. Effective July 1st, 2025, the lot spans the definition of farm products include both
edible and non-edible plants. So, we felt we were okay. >> Okay. What's the town's response to that? >> I didn't know that. Let me get my copy of
section. >> Should we share this or submit this? Your honor, >> you've got a copy of the >> Yeah. Give it to the code officer and they'll give it to the town attorney before I take a look. Copy. I want to add one more thing. Uh last
week, actually this Monday, we received a letter on the mail from Loxachi Groves that we're not going to need um manure holding uh license no more to operate in Loxahi. It's not required from the for
2026. Basically um they used to >> um every year we had to apply for a license and with a bunch of rules and they they want to apply to us and for 2026 we're not going to have no more uh license for to hold manure loss.
>> So manure >> if you give me the opportunity to explain. >> Were you born? >> Yes I was. >> Thank you. >> Um >> your name for the record just so it's clear. >> Absolutely. Karen Gardner young community standards director. So the letter outlined that we are enforcing our regulations. We just are not issuing
specific a paper for a license. There's still requirements and regulations that must be addressed and must be followed by anybody who is hauling waste into the town or out of the town. >> We call it manure. You call it waste. Is
horse manure we use in the nursery? the um with respect to >> go ahead Mr. s >> uh the section that I believe uh that they're citing to on duplication of regulation
um 3A says a governmental entity may not exercise any of its powers to adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, regulation or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate or otherwise limit an activity of bonafide farm operation including but not limited to the
collection, storage, processing and distribution of farm product on land classified as agricult. ultural land pursuant to 193.461. This property does have um an agricultural land classification if such however there's a caveat. If such
activity is regulated through implemented best management practices, interim measures or regulations adopted as rules under chapter 120 of the department of environmental um protection. uh the agricultural um and
consumer services or water management district as a part of a statewide regional program. Um they have not indicated in their testimony that there are regulations um concerning the placement of manure that have been
adopted um for their property um by virtue of chapter 120 of the department of environmental protection or uh department of agricultural and consumer services. Um so um without that
it's not a duplication of regulation. Um, it is a regulation that we are allowed to to have. >> Can you reread the second part, the caveat that you indicated? Reread that sentence to me, please. >> I would it be easier for me to >> Yeah, if you if you don't mind, that'd
be great. I think you can set it there. >> And did the town have any objection to this document or I look at it. Um hearsay is allowed. This document constitutes here better than say the
actual chapter 20256. >> Okay. All right. So, what you're saying, Mr. Curts, is that for that caveat or exemption to apply, what they're doing has to be regulated by one of those specified activities, and that's not the
case. Is that >> demonstrate that? >> Okay, your honor. Um, I I wish to address Mr. Guzo's um comments about manure versus livestock. The reason the town uses the word
livestock is because that is what in is what is used in the statutes and the town regulations, but we totally understand that it is manure. So, I'm sorry. That's the only reason we
call it livestock waste. >> Yeah. In purposefully you call it waste. I Yeah. >> Because it's definitional by the statutes and our regulations. >> I just wanted to say it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm going to mark uh this additional
exhibit regarding HP211 as >> if you like to print a copy. I'll be happy to print a copy of this for you. >> No, that's fine. that I don't think we're all on judicial notice of state law. So that doesn't I don't think officially need to be entered into the
record unless the town desires otherwise. But I do want to enter composite exhibit R3 without objection. And I'll mark that. All right. So the issue is you you do get some allowance under state law, but
you unless the activity that you're indicating uh is regulated as as some other best management practice or some other one of the items that were specified in the statute, that's not applicable that carve out. So it doesn't those statutes don't give you carp launch to operate in any way that you
you want. You still have to follow certain things and my read of that statuto provision and my read of ordinance 2012-03 still requires you to get the permit to have the manure deposited on the site. So um I what I'm going to do though because again I have um
the testimony Miss Thomas you you testified that this is irreparable irreversible violation. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, I'm gonna again I have the same concerns with the fact that the pictures that you're relying on were from January 6 uh to issue this notice of violation,
but you waited 20 days to send the notice. So, um I do have sufficient evidence in this case to find a violation. I'm not going to grant the town what it's asking me, which is to to find you uh what's allowed under state law. I also questioned the town as to whether that's permissible given the
language in 2012-03 which uh actually specifies the fine amounts. So, but I don't need to get into that today because I'm not going to do that. I I I they've cited you as irreparable and irreversible. You showed up to the hearing when they cite you that way. They only have to give you a reasonable notice. They don't have to
give you time to comply. I understand the argument. I have a master's degree in natural resources and environmental management. I understand the concern about manure being placed uh close to bodies of water. We're not going to get into the merits of that today. The simple remedy for you is to get the permit and then as part of the town's
evaluation, they will determine whether the pile can stay where it is based on where the applicable regulations say that you can plant or not plant but store that material or deposit that material. So, I understand the gravity of the depositing of the material. I'm sensitive to that. Um, but I am given
the fact that the town um could have cited you a little sooner. You could have gotten a permit before the hearing with 3 days notice. You didn't have time to do that. So, I'm going to find you in violation and that will alleviate the talent's concern as it relates to what they assert that you're doing, which is having a violation notice issued to you
getting into compliance and never coming to me. So, uh I'm sensitive to that. If that's what's happening and you're trying to be in due diligence, do what you're supposed to do and get complied. I understand that, but I also understand that people use that sometimes. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. Um but I do have the the facts and the evidence
here to find you in violation. Today, I'm going to give you time to get the permit. Um, I'm going to ask the town, what is the typical turnaround time on one of those permits? >> If they fill it out today, >> I can review it today. And what I will
use as the basis of signing off on it is that picture that's up on the um that Ariel from Palm Beach County that is up on the um screen. And I will also use
the measuring tool from the border of the parking lot unless the um manure is removed from there as well. And I will revisit the conversations that I've previously had
with Mr. Guzo about a slab or a liner um and the better way to use that property. There is absolutely no question that it can be spread on the tree nursery. That's a wonderful use for that
material. However, um you can see that there is a parking lot um and we will need to discuss that. And so therefore, while I would say I would normally be able to approve this today, I will not
be able to approve this today because we have a number of issues that we need to discuss as we have previously discussed before. >> So the >> I need at least a week. >> The prop the property owner will also need to identify the um portable water
well >> location. >> Correct. >> Yeah. The ordinance. Yeah, I'll I'll give you a reasonable time to comply. Um, what they're telling you and obviously when I ask her how much time does it take to review an application, that depends on the quality of the application that you submit, right? So,
if you only complete the first field on the application and don't complete anything else, they're going to reject it and we're not going to get anywhere. Um, so do your due diligence in submitting a complete application. Give them all the information that's required in the ordinance and in the town code so that you can get through this process. Uh, my goal here is never to be
punitive. My goal is to get you complied with the town's code and the town's ordinances. So, I will give you a reasonable amount of time to do that. Um, but I will just so you understand because I'm finding you in violation today. If it happens again in the future, they can cite you for repeat violation. They don't have to give you
time to cure. They could also site you for irreparable irreversible just as they've done today given the the severity of the violation. So, um just know that going forward. It sounds like you have stopped with the um bringing in new material to that site. So continue to do that until you have the required
permits that the town uh code requires. So um with that, I've heard a week or two. Anything else from you gentlemen before I make my final ruling? >> No, just to be clear uh clear. So the is do we still have an issue then with this part that was spread out? Because I I
guess I'm trying to understand what we need to do to comply. you, yes, you need to submit a permit application for the brown part that's on there. And then I think for whatever photographs you submitted to me that show an additional pile, any any manure, the town's ordinance says that that in layman's terms, uh, you have to have a permit for
the deposit of um >> that material. >> Okay. >> So, any material you have on the site, I would go ahead and apply for whatever you've got there so that you don't have another issue on a different pile later. >> Okay. >> All right. Other than that, anything else?
All right. Anything further from the town? >> And there are cost recovery for today. Is that accurate for 23405? >> Yes. >> All right. Today is what? January 29th.
All right. I'm going to give you So, with that, let me uh be formal my let me be formal my final ruling. I've entered both sides evidentiary case files. I'll give the town back these additional exhibits after my ruling to be kept in the case file that you have. In case
C26-40, uh I need to make a finding of service. I'll find based on the affidavit of posting in the case file that the town had uh good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs that have been entered into the record by both the town and the respondent as well
as the testimony of the code enforcement officer and town staff that the respondents in violation of the town's uh ordinance 2012-03. I will require respondent to comply with that code section uh by obtaining the permit. So compliance in this case is
not applying for the permit, it's obtaining the permit. So, and if you're not, for whatever reason, able to obtain a permit, you need to remove the material by the date that I specified. There's more than always more than one way to comply. I just want to make sure you're clearly even here um the options that you have. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> So, I'm going to give you uh I'm going
to require you to comply on or before February 13th or I'm going to set you for and I'm going to set this as a statusfine assessment hearing on February 18th. That hearing is proceeding correctly. Excuse me. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. I'm going to set it statusfine assessment. So I don't
presume there'll be any issue. Uh but that gives me the ability that if there's some issue that's of no nothing that you've done in terms of not submitting timely that I have an opportunity to give you additional time. Again be sensitive to the fact that of the material that the nature of the material and and what the town's um proven in its case today. So I'm I
probably am not inclined to give you more time. I think the time I'm giving you is plenty of time, but if unforeseen circumstances dictate, I have that ability, then um I will at that hearing also, if you don't comply by February 13th,
the town's ordinance says that you are subject to a fine of $250, I think. Let me just check >> for an initial violation. >> Yeah, I just want to find that langage.
What page is that on? Mr. Curts, do you see it there? >> Oh, here it is. $250 for the initial violation. So, I'm going to and the order will say that if you don't comply by February 13th, a fine of $250 per day uh will continue to acrue after starting
it will start on the 14th of February and continue until you comply. So, my order will reflect that. Hopefully, that's a non-issue and you get complied and it's uh of no consequence because I have found you in violation. Uh Florida statutes uh authorizes the town to request that I assess you its
administrative costs for prosecuting today's hearing. So, I'm going to assess those. They're in the amount of 23405 and they're payable within 30 days. So, um, get the application in as quickly as you can and hopefully you'll get complied by that date. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Best of luck, gentlemen.
Thank you. >> If we could take a quick break. >> We need to take a very quick break because I have a two o'clock that I have a hard stop in about 20 minutes. >> How about you start the process without me?
We ready for the next case? Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, great. Uh, next item is F Road Properties LLC. address 1462 F Road, case number CE25-39 for uh PCN number 4141431 17016080010
violation of the Tanalaka Gross code of ordinances and ordinance number 2012-03. The violations result from the continuing occurrence violations represent a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare and the violations may be irreparable or irreversible in nature. I'll turn this
over to town staff. Code enforcement officer Deanna Thomas, previously sworn. Um, again, uh, I don't know what happened with my computer, but, um, the CA case number is wrong.
It's 26-39. So, again, my apologies. It won't happen again. Um, I believe I've got it fixed as of today. However, we are here um for this property for the same reason uh
manure being dumped on the property. Uh there was a previous case um that we had uh submitted. It was did not go to court because he did comply. It was a previous
case done in April of 2025. Um, and he complied. Uh, a couple months back, uh, before Christmas, we had gotten a call that there was a fire on the property. Um,
and it was at that time we had noticed more manure being deposited on the property. At that time, we told him it had to be cleaned up. He did get it cleaned up.
Uh now we are at today's point where there's uh a large case file with with many pictures that show his property with manure right up against the property line. Um
now when he was presented with this, I met him at his property. We spoke and he said he would have it cleaned up the very next day. I spoke to him Tuesday the 27th of January. I went out
Wednesday the 28th. He had most of it gone. I told him it wasn't satisfactory to me. I wanted it all gone. Uh I went back Thursday
and he complied. He he did comply. However, we are seeking a finding of fact on this case. So if he should come back out of compliance and dump manure on his property again, then we will be
seeking a repeat violation on him. >> Okay. How did you cite this? Did you cite this as irreparable? >> I did. Yes, but he complied. >> Did you give him a time to comply? >> Uh, no. But he complied the next day
when I when I spoke to him on that Tuesday, he said I mean he was >> he >> he was working. He >> is it your testimony that he removed the material? Um, but where was that material located?
Um, in comparison to bodies of water of manure that's from the area of this corner here and it was just an angry body. So that green area there is not grass. That's a body of water.
>> Um and I apologize with my break. Um u have you already testified about the fire that occurred on this property? >> I did. I did. And I told him I said that's when we had noticed manure and he got that cleaned up. There was no case
issued for that. Um but we happened to go by the property or or John happened to go by the property and seen that there was manure took pictures in the case filed. There are pictures. Um and that was on a Friday the Friday I
believe the 23rd. And uh he said he would get it cleaned up and he called Mr. Mr. uh Kaiser called and I spoke with him and we agreed that I would come out on Tuesday
and um I mean on Wednesday and it wasn't to my liking and he said, "Okay, what do I need done?" I said, "You need to have it all gone. Nothing. No indication of anything on the property." So, he did that and I have pictures indicating that
in the file that he's in compliance. Um, and is there does there exist a permit from the town um for the receipt of manure on this property? >> No.
>> Um, if I could call the town manager. >> Sure. >> Um, as a part of your responsibilities as a town manager, do you review permits? um
or recipients of pro recipients of manure on property. >> I do. >> Um and have you ever received a uh permit application for the property located at 1416
>> 1462 F Road? >> 1462 F Road. >> No. Um, and if you could explain to the spe the magistrate why the town believes that uh the location
of manure within 200 feet of a body of open water is irreparable harm. Um, that would be appreciated. >> Virtually the full town is on
well and septic. And so location of any nutrientrich material including livestock waste or manure is a significant risk for runoff and
leeate into the water supply. Um, that's uh that's all the questions I have at this point. >> All right. No additional town witnesses? >> No. >> All right. Your name, sir? >> Mark Kaiser. Vince W. >> And what's your relation to the LLC? Mr.
Kaiser. >> The owner. >> And is your last name K E I S? >> K A I S E R. >> Thank you. Let me ask Miss Thomas, can you show uh the respondent your evidentiary case file? >> Yes.
>> She's going to show you the case file that they're going to ask me to look at and enter into the record. Take a look at those documents and let me know if you have any objection to the documents being entered. >> No objection. >> No objection. You've been in touch with them communication. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> All right. In case 26-39, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. And if I could see that case file. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, you've heard what the town is saying. They're telling me that you had some manure deposited on the
site that requires a permit. You removed it all from the property. Is that that's accurate? Yes. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like me to hear? >> No, that's Thank you. So, what's the date of compliance?
>> Uh, the 28th, which I have them here. The 27th, I'm sorry. 27th. >> All right. Can you show those to um Mr. Kaiser? Any objections to those additional photos being added?
>> Thank you. >> That's what it looks like now. >> Okay. Totally clean. >> All right, sir. And you understand in the future you have to get a permit to bring any more material like that in. >> Understood. >> Okay. And you heard I think you heard me tell the prior gentleman, I have
sufficient evidence to find you in violation today. Um they're asking me for a finding of fact. I I actually don't think I can grant a finding a fact, but I can find you in violation for uh one particular day because what a finding a fact means is that you were um
cited for something. The town gave you a specified time to comply. You complied by the date specified because they cited you as an irreparable violation. They didn't have to give you time to comply based on the the gravity of the violation. So, um what I'll find you in violation of is just for the one day, which was January 23rd. Um, I'll have
the order indicate that you've come into compliance as of January 27th, but beyond notice that what that means is if you bring more of the manure material in and you don't have a permit, they can cite you either again as an irreparable irreversible violation because of the nature of the material or they could
site you as a repeat violation. In both instances, they don't have to give you time to cure the violation. They'll just set you to a hearing before me and ask me to find you uh in the future. So, the short story there is don't do it again or they can set you for a quick hearing. Um, >> anything else you'd like me to hear, sir?
>> That's it. >> All right. Anything else from the town? >> Um, I want to make sure that uh there was testimony concerning the uh administrative costs and we would like the assessment of administrative costs. >> Yes,
there she is in the back of your folder. It's 23405. All right. Thank you. So, in case 2639, I've entered the uh evidentiary case file. I'll find that the town uh based on the notice documents in the case file that the town had good service for
today's hearing via the affidavit of posting. Um, I'll find based on the photographs in the case file and the testimony of town staff that the respondents in violation of section, excuse me, ordinance 2012-03 for the irreparable, irreversible
violation that was observed on January 23rd, 2026. I'll find that respondent uh has since complied with that by removing all of the manure material uh as of January 27, 2026.
So, I will sign an order that uh basically finds you in violation, but states that you've complied because I have found you in violation. The state law authorizes me to assess uh the administrative cost for today's hearing. It's much less they could have asked me to find you for that one day. They're not asking me to find you for for anything. So, I will award them their
administrative costs in the amount of 23405. Those are payable within 30 days. Uh and you'll get an order that reflects that. Okay, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You're all set, sir. Thank you. That appears to be everything. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> All right. With that, I will adjourn this hearing at 12:22.