I'm going to call to order the town of Loxachi Groves uh code enforcement special magistrate hearing. It's 9:04 by Verizon's time. So, we can get started. Uh my name is AMD Bernard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing. The first thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to speak on any 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. I'll swear you all in at the same time. Raise your right hands for me. Do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. A little bit about process.
You may be seated. A little bit about process. Um, most of these cases are either status/fine assessment or violation hearings. Uh, so the process will be the same for both. When you hear your case called, the town staff is sitting at the table right in front of me. You will go
to the podium that is over there to my right, to your left. Uh the town will go first. They'll put on their case, uh introduce any evidence that they want to admit into the record in terms of documents, call any witnesses that they want to call. Uh when the town has concluded its presentation, you will then get an opportunity to uh present
your side of the story. uh cross-examine any witnesses that the town has called, present any documents that you have for me to consider, and obviously give me any verbal testimony that you have here this morning. Uh once I've heard both sides, I will make a formal ruling and you get an order that reflects that ruling uh in the mail after today's
hearing. So, with that, keep in mind that all of your testimony is given under oath. And with that, I'll turn it to the town to call its first case. Uh your magistrate, we'd first like to um let you know that >> uh on page
two >> under uh six violation hearings, new business number one, case new roof Properties LLC has been removed. >> So that's being pulled. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And then number two, uh, JM Ranch Properties LLC has complied. >> So, same thing being pulled from the agenda. >> All right. So, noted. And I guess there is a bit of a new format. Uh, I guess you're doing that as part of additions,
deletions, and or modifications. Thank you. Any other uh modifications to the agenda? >> No. >> All right. And then uh I in in my haste to get to the fun part uh skipped over the meeting minutes. So, uh, I did review, uh, the town sent me the meeting, uh, minutes for both the
September 8th and 17th hearing, uh, last week. I reviewed those last week, and I'll, uh, have the record note that those are approved as drafted for both September 8th and September 17, 2025 hearings. So, with that, now we can get to the good part. >> Good morning, your honor. For the
record, co- compliance officer John is presenting case CE256, reference to the property located at 14885 North Road. Uh notice of hearing was posted at uh the property on September 9th, 2025. A copy of the
notice of hearing order binding violation was mailed certified on the same date to the property owner on a Palm Beach property appraiser and it was also posted here at town hall September 9th 2025. I do have a signed green card
from the property owner. They signed it on September 13th 2025. Um they have been actively removing all storage of trailers and RVs. We did go this morning. Um there's
two left that we could see from the streets. We spoke to the tenant. He says one's going today and he's actively trying to get the other one out. Been raining a lot. So it's very muddy to get the he has to put on a trailer and remove it in that fashion because it's heavy. It's full of storage. Um, at this
time, we're not opposed to granting a 14-day continuance to remove the two RVs, and if they fail to do so, the town is requesting $150 to begin after 14 days from today.
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 submitting the case folder for evidence. getting more
confident in your request. Okay. >> Um, >> are you here for that case? >> Well, they the owners hired an attorney, so I really I can't really speak.
>> Back up. What What's your name? >> Pat Hastings. I was >> Okay. You were here at the previous hearing, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> And um is also here and he wanted to speak to you, but there is an attorney that's been involved. And did did he come in
and see you guys or call you guys the other day with him? >> He did send us an email. >> Okay. >> And he stated that he was supposed to be here. >> Yeah. I'm wondering if it's traffic that's holding him up. I I cannot speak on behalf of Dancing Crane because they
did hire an attorney. >> All right. >> So, um but since Craig's here, if I think maybe could hear what he has to say, I'd appreciate that. >> And who who are you, sir? >> I'm the tenant. >> You're the tenant. Okay. Come can you come to the podium for me?
>> He probably knows more about his personal situation with Kevin right now than I did because of the attorney. >> All right. What's your name, sir? Craig Wells. >> Wells is your last name. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And you're the tenant.
>> All right. So, the town is basically telling me that you got a bunch of of the uh items removed, but you have two left. Is that ma'am? That's >> accurate. The problem with the with the weather. >> Okay. And they're asking me to give you 14 more days.
>> That would be more than sufficient. You can get them removed by then. >> Okay. >> Okay. Does the property owner know that you're here today? >> I don't think the property owner would
have a problem with it being here. >> Like I said, he knows >> I need you to come up front. I'm going to be speaking. It is. I'm sorry. That's okay. >> Sure. It's not come every day to these things. >> I don't see any reason why Mr. Wells can't speak in relation to what he's
been doing and in clearing this up and and you guys went out there this morning said there was just two vehicles left. >> Yeah, it is extremely wet out there and to tow something heavy on the nursery business. I know it's extremely hard to tow out something heavy,
>> right, in the rain, right? But now it was my understanding that if he gets these out of there, these two, there will not be a fine that starts in 14 days at 150 a day. Is that correct? >> If they're removed. Yes. >> If they're removed. That's right. Yeah. >> Okay. So, if those are removed, there is
no fine. And then will there just be another meeting to say it's been done or will >> Typically not. Typically, that's done administratively. So, when he gets the the last two items removed, he can call the code enforcement officers and and have them come reinspect. Typically, you don't come back to a hearing unless they aren't removed.
>> Okay. >> Okay. I'm good. >> Um, magistrate, uh, the town has had communication from the attorney. The attorney indicated that they were going to come here in person. Is that correct?
>> Correct. Um given that we don't have an objection to continue this until uh the attorney can get here, we'll try to um contact him as a matter of courtesy. Just >> so just just uh essentially recess this
case and we can get a hold of them or >> Yes. I don't want to continue it to another day, but recess it until um he's had an opportunity to to be here and as he's already contacted uh our offices. Is there a way for for him to be called
right now? Because I I mean technically you all have service. So >> yeah. Do we have a phone number? I've got my phone here if you've got the number. All right. >> So then we'll wait on first. >> Yeah. Just just uh sit tight. What I'll
do is recess from this hearing and we can proceed to the next uh and then we'll come back to this one. >> Thank you. It >> says recording paused. just okay. >> All right, we're ready to Do you want to go to the next number two?
>> Number two is um the PK case or uh Lantana Holdings. Um and is Mr. German on the line yet? Because we had we sent him a link. >> Yeah.
>> Um, he has not checked in, but uh, the frantic behavior you saw earlier was us getting him the the link. So, I'm not going to blame him for not being on at this moment. I have texted Mr. Mr. German as well. >> Okay. >> Um and I know
uh Melo is here. Um but uh what I would suggest is we go on to the next case until we have appearances. Okay. >> Last two were >> then let me step out
>> morning >> and see if I can get >> Yeah. Take your time. It's it's better. And maybe um your code officer is getting in touch with the other attorney now as we speak. Hopefully Gabby, >> he is um on the link that you sent him,
but it says there's another meeting in progress. So um do you want to check the the link that we sent him or do some magic here? This is all beyond my technical capabilities. I think he's trying. I guess he might
have been looking at I'm here with my our technical assistance and trying to figure it out. Wait, check. >> Um, you should be getting another uh an updated email.
Cody, if we can't get you live on here, do you an objection to it. Okay, I'll I'll ask the special magistrate whether or not that'd be all right. We'll give this one more chance. Have you gotten anything new from us?
Yeah, he's here. >> Okay, looks like you're on. >> I'm here. Thank you everyone. >> All right, so it looks like Mr. German is on. You want to call into the record item two then and we can proceed with that one. >> Let me check and see.
Deanna is the testim. Oh. Five. >> Thank you. >> Sorry about that. >> No, no problem. Um, and before we get started with that, Miss Hastings, we have not been able to
uh contact the attorney. You may want to be in contact with >> the owner and the attorney and we'll give you some grace. >> Thank you. Did you try him by phone and email or how did you try? >> We weren't able to locate his um phone
or email. So, >> I don't have a phone, but I do have an email. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, do we want to stay recessed on number one and proceed to number two? >> I think that's the way to go. >> All right. Dana, if you want to call Lantana
Holdings. >> Diana Thomas, code enforcement officer, town of Lahi Groves, previously sworn. Um, this case is regarding Lantana Holdings LLC for a notice status fine
assessment hearing. The address is 16169 Southern Boulevard. Code case numbers are 2301 003 and 23 0100006. Property control number is 41404 433600
01020. Uh we had filed um a notice of non-compliance with the clerk of the courts on 917. I do have a copy for you, your magistrate.
Um, I also emailed it to the property owners and to the attorneys. And as far as I know, they are still not in compliance. Um, there was an issue about a bond. We have not gotten a bond.
And as far as anything else, I can defer it to the town attorney. So I guess before you switch it over, what do you have in terms of testimony on service for this morning's hearing? I do have a signed green card by Lance
Santa Holdings. >> And what was sent and when? A copy of the continuence on the uh agenda for a copy of the
continuence for this hearing because we had wanted some time to take to meet with the um the attorneys and we did do that via Zoom and we did advise them at that time that we would be filing the affidavit of
non-compliance. Well, that we did do it. The date we did it again is 91725. Um, and they knew they were it was discussed as to what they had to come up with
>> regarding the assessment. Yeah, I mean regarding the bond and complying with all permitting. Your honor, I had previously found good service with respect to um the two
hearings before where this matter had been continued and you um announced in open session uh the continuence until this date. Um and so the additional
efforts and correspondence are um uh probably superfluous since they were in attendance or could have been in attendance at the properly noticed hearings pursuant to your previous rulings. And your honor, just on on behalf of uh
the tenants, clearly we have service. We're here. I can't speak for the landlord, the owner of the property. >> All right. Um, I guess I just can't remember. This has been on so many agendas now they get it gets blurry in my mind to be honest with
all of you. Um, >> so this was a previous order from August. So that said it for September 17th. Was there a subsequent hearing or was it not heard at September 17th? >> On September 17th it was continued. >> So there was a subsequent order. >> Yes. >> Okay. Was that order sent everywhere?
>> Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. And then I think maybe do you have a copy of the Yeah, it's in here. I I'm pretty sure service is stipulated to and waved anyways in the underlying agreements, but we'll get to that. So, um before I hear from Mr. German now, it sounds like and I clearly
remember at the last hearing uh where there were any merits discussed that the issue was not having reported the affidavit of non-compliance, but what is the town's position uh here today? I understand you've met with the attorneys, but what is the ask or the remedy requested today?
>> Well, at this point in time, uh the affidavit of non-compliance has been recorded. It has been presented to uh the parties um and pursuant to the uh amend first amendment to the stipulation. at this point in time there
being non-compliance um a series of fines uh can be assessed. Um if you look at the amended uh first amendment to the stipulation which was entered into on June 20
uh 7th of um uh 2023 um it indicates in paragraph 6A and 6B um that uh upon the recording of the
affidavit of non-compliance we will the town will seek an order imposing fines as follows. Um for case number 2301003, a fine of $250 per day from the effective date of uh the amendment and
continuing to acrew until compliance is achieved. Um and and for case number 2301006, a fine of $11,452.50 50 cents per day um from the date of the order finding violation and continuing
to acrue until compliance is achieved. With respect to 6B, um the fine of $11,452.50. I have questions as to whether or not um
from a jurisdictional standpoint the magistrate could enter an order to to that effect. Um so what we are seeking today um is a fine of $250 per
day um for each of the the cases um from the date of the amended uh the first amendment which is June 27th uh 2023. We're trying to be as fair as possible with respect to to the
situation. Um there have been by my calculation since June 27th um to today uh there have been 8 and um
33 days I believe it is. Um and at a a fine of $250 per day. Let me just make sure of my calculations on that.
Um that would be uh $28,250 um in each of the cases up until this point in time. Um so cumulatively uh we're seeking the imposition of a fine
of $416,500. Um and uh that it continue uh at the rate of $250 per day uh for each of the the cases. Um, case 2310003
uh is the use violation. Um, and case 2306 is the uh vegetation removal uh violation. um the solution to the vegetation removal violation at this point in time.
They have submitted for permits um but they have not uh produced a bond um as required under our uh vegetative removal guidelines for the trees that they have already removed um pending their
replanting um program. uh and with respect to the use um it continues uh unabated in a continuous and notorious fashion. uh I don't think that there will be any
argument that it is uh they are continuing to operate uh the business um and they have uh promised once again uh to submit applications which could
potentially remedy uh the violation or allow the it won't remedy the existing violation but it would allow um the use to continue if all of the petitions were granted, but at this moment in time, we have not
received the petitions. Um and >> and you're speaking of I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you're speaking of essentially a zoning text amendment or some some code relation that would allow >> land use and zoning um text amendments and land use designation and uh zoning
designations that would allow the the use. um those things have been contemplated and um promised as evidenced by uh the stipulations that had previously been entered into um for
over two years at this point in time. So uh we would respectfully request the imposition of fines in those amounts. Um and take any questions that you have. And then just so I understand in terms
of compliance on the use issue, should there should petitions be filed and those be processed through the town and ultimately approved that would ultimately result in compliance on the part of the respondent. Is that correct? >> That is correct. But >> so it's either sessation of the use as
it exists today or modify the code to allow what's what's operating there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Any further uh testimony from the town? >> No. >> Okay,
Mr. German, it is your turn. Um, just put on the record who you represent again, please. >> Yeah, I represent the tenant FERP Holdings. >> All right. >> And I actually um just got a message
from a representative of the owner of the property who asked about the link So, I'm going to email to him now. Uh, just give me one second because maybe he might be logging on. It might be he might have had the wrong link, too.
>> And who is that, Mr. German? >> This is a representative of the owner of the property. >> All right. Was the town aware that the owner was the town in contact with a representative from the owner? Were you aware that they were going to be appearing? the to the best of my knowledge um the representative of the
owner has not contacted us uh since the preceding hearing or hearings. We have the the contact has all been through uh the tenant and the tenants representatives. >> Okay. >> But we have no no objection to to them
appearing. It might help us resolve all of this. >> All right. With Mr. German. So, you've sent the email the link to >> I just did. Yeah, cuz I just saw the sent. >> So, what is your uh I guess I want to give you an
opportunity to speak uh in response to what the town said. Um you've been involved with this for quite some time. Um so, I'll open the floor to you. >> Yes. and and um one of my client reps is there present today as well um in case
anyone has any questions for him as well cuz he clearly knows what's going on from the ground floor level more than I do from my law office. But um we reached out to the town attorney, Mr. Curts, um and asked if we could get the bond
solely in the name of my client just because it would be much easier. Um and that's the reason why we hadn't heard back. That's the reason why uh the bond is not in place. My client fully has the intention of of getting that bond. It was just a matter of kind of the
logistics of involving another party in the bond from an underwriting perspective on the bond side. Um that that's the reason for the delay on that end. As it relates to everything else, we presently intend on getting all the applications submitted um in the next
two to three weeks. So, I know that this is something that's been uh discussed many times before, but my client's working hard and in good faith clearly has all interest to try to resolve all these issues. Um, but but as far as the current status as
we sit here right now, Mr. Mr. Curts hasn't misrepresented anything. >> Okay. We we obviously would like the opportunity to come back at a later date and try to argue for mitigation as to the amount which is obviously
extraordinarily high and daunting could be crippling for the business venture in all cander. Um and and I think that if if we were to litigate the reasons for delays there are many reasons. um not here to point fingers, but I think that
there are many parties involved in the process who could share in that fault. All right. Uh do you have any testimony that you want your uh inerson representative to to make or is he just here for questions?
Yeah, I mean if if if you want for the record the clarification to the reason as to why the bond is not in place today and the present anticipated date for getting these applications. I'm happy to have them testify. I don't know if that's
>> No, I think that's fine. That that sounds to me like a an administrative um you know, if that's part of the required permit uh submitt and and the town doesn't have that. I think the testimony of the town is fine. But I wanted to give uh him an opportunity to speak if you wanted him to speak.
He's there. Um Mr. Avalar, if you want if you want to say anything to the town magistrate, you're certainly welcome to do so. >> Do we have him on? Do we see anybody else? >> Do you want to say anything, sir?
You can come come to the record and just give your appearances since you're here and you took time out of your day. Um, >> there's somebody that's supposed to be signing. >> What's your name? >> Last name >> and your uh position >> administrative
>> with >> All right. Anything you want me to hear? >> What? said about the bond he could do that make that bond in part instead of provide that as soon as possible.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. And that that uh issue with the bond is not necessarily going to be something that I uh opine on here. um it's part of the the non-compliance status, but that's I presume a
requirement of the code. So, that's something that you're going to have to work with the town on figuring out if that's acceptable for it to come from the the tenant rather than the property owner. I'm not sure what their code says. Um the portion of it that that pertains to what I'm doing here today is just whether or not the town has it. Beyond
that, I'm I'm not going to I can't it's not wouldn't be appropriate for me to rule on anything. Um, has anybody else joined the uh Zoom or whatever WebEx? >> Mr. German, uh, who are we expecting to
to come in? >> So, the owner rep who emailed me is Moisus uh, Benzac Queen. I sent him the link. >> We're not seeing anything on there. Okay. Okay.
And I guess as it relates to a record for today's proceeding, what does the town want entered >> with respect to um I think the affidavit of non-compliance is something that has not previously been submitted.
>> Okay. Um and then uh whether uh do you want to accept the portions of the file dealing with service or just make a finding uh that there was proper service? >> Yeah, I'll I'll admit uh everything that you've submitted here to me
and just for the record, I presume this was not provided to Mr. German in advance of the hearing. >> Um >> I think Mr. Mr. German has received a copy of the affidavit of non-comp compliance and he has received a copy of the uh attended documents and the
previous stipulations. Is that correct, Mr. German? >> Uh yes. >> All right. Just so the record is clear uh Mr. German and I I believe in all prior hearings I asked you to uh given your virtual appearance to to wave any
objections to the entry of the town's record. Um, and you've agreed to do that in the past. U, but I'll note for you, just so you understand what I'm looking at here this morning, I have the affidavit of non-compliance recorded in the public record uh, of Palm Beach
County on September 17th, 2025 at 9:12. That's a two-page document. I have a prior order on joint code enforcement stipulated agreements and assessing fine and claim of lean. that is uh part of that recorded document. That was an
April 27th, 2023 order that I issued the stipulated agreement for cases 2110 03 and 21101006 is part of that recorded document. as is another order on joint code enforcement
stipulated agreement and assessing fine and claim of lean from April 27, 2023. It might be a duplicate actually. I think that's the same order. And then the first amendment, the first amendment to stipulated
agreement which is dated June 27th, 2023. That is uh before me as our copies of uh signed certified mail with a date of 918 2025.
prior order continuing hearing from August 22nd, 2025. An 8525 certified mail signed some email correspondence um that included you, Mr. German, from August 4th, 2025.
another continuence order from August 4th and the original notice of status fine assessment hearing for the August 4th hearing. And lastly, a signed certified mail and affidavit of posting for the service
documents for the July 205th proceeding. So, Mr. German, any objection to those documents being entered into the record? >> No. >> All right. And I'll note uh also for the record, despite the town having I guess
in addition to the town having certified mail from September 18th, 2025 for the most recent uh order granting continuence, I'll note that the stipulated agreement which is the
original agreement which was dated April 3rd, 2023. Provision number 11 says, "By signing this agreement, the owner agrees that all procedural due process rights relative to this case are hereby waved. However, nothing herein shall wave any due process rights that would otherwise
be afforded under Florida law." So as it relates to uh any due process claims for these code enforcement cases, they have been waved by that provision of the stipulated agreement. And then as it relates to the merits of
uh what's been said here this morning, I guess before I go into that, uh anything further from you, Mr. German, before I make a ruling? >> Nothing further from me. >> All right. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing, your honor. I I guess the only further comment I
would have is that I would hope that any ruling have the caveat that it's without prejudice of my client being able to come back and seek a mitigation of the fund. Typically I typically those words are not used in code enforcement
proceedings. Uh at least that's been my experience. Uh, I don't think anything the the I guess I'll I'll use for lack of a better term the rub on this case is that this is I'm essentially ordering entering an order but uh you all by virtue of entering into a stipulated
agreement removed this these matters from from my sort of jurisdiction uh and came to a mutual agreement on the part of both parties. Um, so I don't think there's anything and I'll ask the town uh what what's the town's position relative to rights to uh requesting fine
mitigation in the future uh upon compliance of these cases. >> Uh they would have the rights that were provided under the pounds code. >> Okay. So nothing in these in the stipulated agreement changes that? >> No. Um but uh I would object to any
language about um it being without prejudice. Uh >> yeah, I typically Mr. German don't use those those words. Those are as you're well aware those are more formal court proceedings. Those those are not typically uh done in code enforcement. But that was what my assessment of of
the town's code also was is that there's nothing that precludes you from coming back in the future. But uh that said, just so the record is clear, uh fine mitigation never happens until compliance is ultimately achieved in both cases. So that's certainly step one, but um that is not what's what's
before me this morning. So, um, with that, anything else from the town? >> Don't think so, y'all. >> All right. So, just so the record is clear in terms of my authority here this morning, the
first amendment to stipulated agreement, which is dated June 27, 2023, uh, paragraph 7. This amendment made a couple of of modifications to the document, but the notable one is paragraph 7,
which Mr. Curts partially read. I'll just reread it into the record just so uh it's very clear. Uh section seven says, "The parties agreed to modify paragraph six of the agreement as follows. Six is now rewritten to read. If owner fails to comply with the
compliance schedule, the town will record an affidavit of non-compliance in the public records and this agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no force in effect except that the provisions of paragraphs six and seven shall survive such termination. Additionally, upon the recording of the affidavit of non-compliance, the town
will seek an order imposing fines as follows. uh subp part A for case number 23010000003 a fine of $250 per day from the effective date of this amendment and continuing to acrew until compliance is
achieved. B for case number 2301006 a fine of $11,452.50 50 cents per day in accordance with the fine schedule attached here to exhibit A1 from the date of the order finding violation and continuing to acrue until
compliance is achieved. All fines to be imposed will become a lean on the property where the violations exist or violation exists rather and upon any other real or personal property of the violator/owner nothing here and shall wave the owner or tenants right to seek
a reduction of fines or other penalties after compliance with this agreement. So that language also speaks to the fine reduction uh relative to the mutual agreement as stipulated by the parties. So, uh, noting that I will, um, because
the town has now done the part that that was not done at the last hearing where the merits were discussed, uh, and recorded the affidavit of non-compliance for cases 211010003 and 211010006, having been recorded, uh, in the public
record on September 17th of 2025, uh, and having reviewed that affidavit of compliance, which uh, states that the property remains in violation uh under both of the referenced cases. Uh
the 03 case having to do with the prohibited use on the property and the uh 00006 case having to do with the vegetation removal permit. I'll note that provision seven of that affidavit says the property owner
Lantana Holdings LLC is therefore not in compliance with the order on joint code enforcement stipulated agreement in the first amendment the joint code enforcement stipulated agreement. So having noted that the property remains in violation uh of the
code sections referenced in each of the cases I will issue I guess procedural question for both the parties. Do you want two separate orders? And I know that these kind of got combined at some point perhaps just due to the continuence uh requests. What what is the preference
of the parties as it relates to the orders? Would would is the town requesting a combined order or individual orders? >> The town is all right with combined orders. >> All right, Mr. German, are you in agreement with that? >> That's fine.
All right, I will with that uh having noted that the violations exist in both cases, I will order uh excuse me, issue an order assessing fine that contains both case numbers 23010003 and 2301006. And for both cases, uh the fine will be
the same. It will be the $250 per day uh fine that begins on the date of the first amended uh agreement to the stipulation which is June 27, 2023 and continues through today. That's a total of $833
days. So that will be a total of $28,250 per day uh in case 23010003. And that fine will continue to run and acrew at $250 per day until compliance is achieved.
And for case 2301006, the same fine uh in the amount of $28,250 will be assessed for the $833 days beginning June 27, 2023 through today. And again, we'll continue to acrew at
$250 per day until compliance is achieved. Um I don't see anything about administrative costs. Any administrative costs? >> The I think your honor uh assessed cost
at the last hearing with respect to um my recollection is that you imposed f uh you imposed cost um at the last hearing. So, we're not seeking um cost for today's hearing. >> Okay.
All right. That um the order will reflect that. The order will also reflect uh Mr. German, the same language that I include in all or I have included in prior orders as it relates to the waiver of uh pro waiver of due process that I just referenced as well as the certified mail. So that the
order will reflect that there is uh legally sufficient service to proceed in the matter this morning. And then it will reflect the uh fines that I just read out loud. There will be no administrative um costs assessed in the
order that I issue today. And that will be the extent of the order. So, thank you for appearing, Mr. German. Um, and you know this, I'm sure, with with your involvement with the town, but uh certainly as it relates to any matter involving compliance, make sure when you've come into compliance that you uh
get in touch with the town immediately to get them to reinspect uh to comply out the cases. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> All right. Are we ready to go back? >> Just so the record's clear, uh, Mr. I
see Mr. Ben Queen's on as well. >> So, somebody else has appeared on the Zoom is what he said. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah, there's a Moises uh Benz Queen. I don't know whether he wants to comment or not. That would be up to
>> Oh, no comment. And that's correct. That's my name. Thank you. And you said, "Sir, what what's your name, sir?" >> My name is Moses Mi Ses. My last name is BS and Boy E N Z A Q U N.
>> And you said you have no comment. >> No, I I was just hearing what you said. >> Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. >> Does he represent the owner? >> He Yeah, he he does. He's one of the signators on these agreements.
Do you want me to ask him? >> He just said yes. >> You represent who, sir? >> No, he's not a lawyer. He's he's he's one of the representatives of the owner of the property is my understanding. >> Right. His
name is on one of these. Uh, >> Mr. Benzqueen, you who do you who do you uh who are you affiliated with? You're the You're the managing member, is that right, of >> That's correct. >> Lantana Holdings LLC. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And you don't have any comments for me this morning? You've heard you've
heard the ruling and you understand? >> Uh, sort of. I I was expecting that I I thought that today was like a decision to move ahead with some different resolution meaning uh you know
instead of those kind of amounts something to move along pay and and and go ahead but it seems that in order to do that they need to clear the regulation first correct >> they need to what sir I'm sorry >> clear regulations.
>> I didn't I didn't pick up on >> I can't hear the end of what you're saying, sir. >> What what I'm saying is that what I understood from your comments is that in order to do anything else, the violations need to be solved first. >> Oh, the violation. Yeah. So, that my comments about that were just relative
to uh mitigation of the fine amounts. So, the only thing that I have authority under this amended agreement to do is to issue an order that assesses fines based on your agreement with the town uh and and Mr. German's agreement with the town that that all the parties signed in terms of the joint stipulation and the
amendment uh to that joint stipulation. So the the only authority that I have is is to issue the order that I just ruled on um imposing the fines that that were uh set by the agreement that you undertook with the town and and with
furpoldings. So um in terms of the proceeding ever coming back to me, the only thing that that could come back to me as a special magistrate is a fine mitigation hearing. And my comment about compliance was you can't you can't request mitigation of the fines until the property is in compliance with the
town's code. So you I based on what I've heard, there's some additional steps that still have to be undertaken on your part uh to get into compliance, but but that that would not your fine re mitigation request or fine reduction request can't happen until that compliance is achieved. Is is that clear? >> Understood. That that's what I
understood. That's correct. Thank you. >> Yeah, that that's that's what that comment was about. So, I appreciate that additional uh question. So, you'll get an order because you're the uh property owner. You'll get an order, a copy of the order uh that I write and sign today uh in the mail. Uh
and I would certainly, you know, it's in your best interest to work with the town uh towards getting into compliance at this point. >> No, obviously. Obviously, and I know Cody, Mr. Cody and and Ferb the tenant has been working diligently to do so. Uh
but it takes more than desired need to need to you know many steps to do so but they will comply with it. >> Okay. Great. Thank you sir. All right. Do you want me to reopen dancing crane c25-6?
>> Yes sir. >> All right. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. Bye. Um, we did not make contact with the attorney and that I don't believe the attorney showed up. So,
but our record I mean still stands proper service and the town would like to allow 14 days to come into compliance. >> All right. So, the town is ready to proceed. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. So with that
what I will do first is uh enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection I'll find based on the um notice documents in the case file which include both an affidavit of posting as well as
a signed certified mail that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. Uh I'll note just because it wasn't said uh I don't believe in the original testimony that the uh prior order finding violation was from
September 8th, 2025 and it required the respondent to comply with uh 92-010 on or before August 5th. the town's testimony that I did hear is that they went back out there today and the two trailers that were spoken about are still there. Um, just one question for
me. Are is is this a scenario where any any RVs are allowed to remain or are all of them being removed? >> Uh, due to the property being zoned single family, they're allowed to, but they would need an affidavit on file >> and there's no affidavit on >> affidavit.
>> Okay. Okay. So the two in question either have to be uh essentially approved through affidavit or removed. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> All right. So with that uh anything further from the town? >> Nothing further.
>> And seeing as the uh property owner's attorney has not uh appeared either in in the room or on the computer. That's correct. Nobody's on the computer. >> No. >> Okay. I'll proceed. Uh having heard the
testimony of the tenant, I'll grant uh the I guess I'll first find that the property remains in violation based on the photographs that are dated October 6th, 831. Uh so I'll find that the respondent
remains in violation of section 92-010. And I will grant a continuence in this matter requiring the uh respondent to comply within 14 days. that's on or before uh October 20th or $150 a day fine will
be assessed for each day that the violation continues after October 20th. So, sir, for you in the back, uh Mr. Wells, the fine won't start until October 21st. So, as soon as you have those those RVs removed, call the code enforcement officer so they can come do a reinspection and and comply out your
case. Um, in the event that it's necessary, I will reset this matter for the 113 November 3rd fine assessment hearing. Uh, in the event that compliance is not achieved.
And is the town seeking administrative costs for today's hearing? >> We are, your honor. >> And they are in the amount of >> in the amount of $2345. Okay. All right. All right. So, I'll grant the order uh issue the order granting continuence
requiring compliance by 1120 or $100 $150 day fine for each day after uh October 20th compliance date. set the matter for fine assessment hearing on November 3rd if necessary and I will assess the town's administrative costs for today's hearing in the amount of
23405 and those are payable within 30 days and I would just ask that the town um there's a cost recovery sheet here in the back but it's not clear what hearing that's from. In the event that this continues to bump along, make sure that you have one in here with each date just
so it's clear because the prior order also imposed them. So, just so your record is clear, uh, if and when I need to issue a fine assessment order. Um, but I'll issue that order this afternoon. Um, but as I said, I think the most important bit for Mr. Wells is to make
sure you call the code officer as soon as you're in compliance so that the fine doesn't start running. Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. That will conclude case 25-6. That appears to be it. >> All right. And the next hearing is
November 3rd, the regular hearing. Does the town have any update on that that mid-occtober hearing and whether that's occurring? >> I don't think it's going, but I'll get a hold of you later after I talk with you. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, with that, I will adjourn this hearing at 10:02.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. We have our meeting.