Morning everyone. I'm going to call to order the town of Lockachi Grove special magistrate hearing. It's March 2nd. Verizon says it's 9:05. So, we can go ahead and get started. My name is Amity Bernard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing. The first thing I'm going to do
is swear anybody in who is here to testify on any items on today's agenda. And just a matter of procedure, it appears that there is somebody on remotely. Is that accurate? >> There's a couple. Yeah, >> there's more than this gentleman. There's >> three. All right. Can you all hear me on the on
the computer? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Very good. Any uh non- attorneys on the computer that need to be sworn? >> I'm a non- attorney, but my attorney is going to be speaking for me. >> All right, sir. Can you turn your video
on? You're not going to be speaking at all. >> Uh, correct. >> Okay, very good. Then I will uh refrain from swearing you in. If there's anything you need to say, just remind me and I'll swear you in at that time. So with that, given there are two attorneys in the uh present remotely, anybody in the room who needs to be sworn, who is
not an attorney, and who's going to be speaking on any items on today's agenda, if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hands for me. Do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you. You may be seated. A little bit about process.
Uh there are violation hearings, fine assessment hearings, uh couple of continuences, and a foreclosure authorization. Um, with each of those cases, I don't see any fine mitigation hearings. So, with each of those cases, you'll hear the town uh once your case is called, the town will present its side. They will call any witnesses that
they intend to call. They will show me their case file that they'd like me to enter into the record. Once the town has concluded its uh presentation, you will come to the podium that is over here to my right on your left. You will then have an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses that has put on, show me any documents that you've brought with you
that you'd like me to look at. you'll have an opportunity to review the evidentiary case file before it's entered into the record. Uh you can obviously give me any verbal testimony that you want me to hear this morning. Once I've heard from both sides, I will make a final ruling and you'll get a copy of an order that reflects that ruling after the hearing today. So with
that, um before I turn it to the town uh for the purposes of the minutes, I did review the February 18th, 2026 minutes, and I have signed those and I'll give those to the clerk uh before leaving today. So with that, I'll turn it to the town to call its first case. Thank you. Uh Karen Gardner Young on behalf of the
town of Lakahachi Groves. Number one 2276D Road LLC. Case number CE26-6 address 2276D road PCN number 41-41-43170141500020 violation section 92-010 recreational vehicles permit inspection
and maintenance requirements. Turn it over to Deanna Thomas. >> Hi. Good morning. Um, Deanna Thomas, code compliance officer, Town of Lockahhatchee Groves. Um, I would like to state that items number 1 2276D
Road LLC has complied. Item number three, Dorothy F. Mock Trust title holder at 1399 Marcella Boulevard has complied. Number four, Triplequats LLC,
address 15317, Collecting Canal Road, has complied. >> I do believe they need to amend their application though. They have an application for one RV and they have two. >> Okay. Noted.
Uh number item number five on page number three is Triple Quattz LLC for the same address 15317 collecting canal road. This is regarding an FDA situation. They have complied
and that is all. >> So th those uh cases are being pulled from the agenda. So yeah, one three four five are being pulled from the agenda. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, first case, Josie and
Jack Stenning, trust title holders. Case number SE26-18, address 14327 Tangerine Drive, PCN number 4141-43 32000 3120. Violation section 92-010,
Recreation Vehicles permit inspection and maintenance requirements. >> Good morning, your honor. For the record, co- compliance officer John Suarez presents a case C2618 in reference to the property located at 14327 Tangerine Drive. The order finding
violation or notice of hearing and notice violation was posted on the property January 16th, 2026. Also mailed same copy via certified mail on same date and was posted here at town hall on same date.
The violations that exist is section 92010 permit inspection maintenance requirements regarding the RV on site without an affidavit or a permit. The town is requesting a fine of $150 per day per violation to be assessed by
non-compliance. We are requesting 30 days to come in compliance. Um your honor, they have one RV on site. They did have an affidavit last year of unoccupied RV. It's still there. We are requesting a another affidavit
this year. Um, we posted that VNOH. I just posted my card Friday that just passed and the property owner did leave me a message on Friday evening. I called them back this morning, text him this
morning, did not make contact. So we just haven't made any contact with the property owner upon multiple attempts. Additionally recommended that admin costs incurred in the amount of $4966 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Lock AI Groves. The full case
folder is being submitted as evidence in support of my recommendation. Thank you. It's a lot So you have the old affidavit in the case file. >> When are how long are these good? You said they were good for a year.
>> The town has a new policy where now we request them yearly. >> But when in the year >> this year, I'm sorry, October one. Is it from the code? >> It's not in the code. It's a written
policy with the town. >> They've received courtesy notices as well before the change took place. >> Anybody who had from last year, >> everybody. >> Okay. >> Everyone in the town. I know this isn't ease of compliance, your honor. As soon as I make contact,
I'm sure they'll come in and and comply, but I've I've made numerous attempts this week knocking on the door as well, leaving my card, and they finally called me back. But, uh, we have not made contact as of yet. Okay.
And is this are the these admin costs are higher than the normal 23405? >> Yes, the town just uh changed our admin costs and now that is the new cost that we are going forth from now on. >> Are you recording orders finding
violation? >> Yes. All right. Is the respondent present in this case? Nobody online is for this case. Correct. Correct. All right. Okay. For the record, respondents are not present in case C26-18.
>> You said compliance in 30 days or what was the fin amount? 100 >> 150 days. after 30 days. $150. I'm sorry, you're on after 30 days. >> All right. So, compliance date.
What fine assessment hearing? Do you want this set for a Monday or a Wednesday? >> Monday, if you will. >> So, that would be April 6th. people heard it. All right. All right. In case C
26-18, I'll enter the town's uh evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include an affidavit of posting that the town had good service for
today's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of the code enforcement officer that the respondents in violation respondents are in violation of sections 92-010 and I'll require respondents to comply
with that section on or before April 3rd 2026 or $150 a day fine will be assessed for each day that the violation continues thereafter. In the event of non-compliance, I'll set this matter for fine assessment hearing on April 6, 2026. And because I found respondents in
violation of the listed code section, I'll assess the administrative costs for today's hearing in the amount of 40966 payable within 30 days. >> Thank you, your honor. And you may just as a on that affidavit, you may want to update that affidavit so it's clear that those run for the fiscal
year is that one was from April 2025. And if I am the property owner, I'm not clear when I sign that affidavit. Just so that everybody's on the same page. >> Understood. >> Thank you. Next case. >> Next case, Leonardo and Jazella Pelenuela. Case number CE25-52.
Address 2793 Road. PCN number 4141-4317012380020 violations section order finding violation dated January 5th 2026 respondents were ordered to comply as follows with the sections listed below code of of ordinances 22-135A
engaging in business occupation etc without license penalty no later than January 25th 2026 20-017 prohibited uses and Florida building code 10531. Building codes required by no later than February 5th,
2026. All compliance officer Johns far presented case CE2552 in reference to the property located at 2793C road. The order of finding violation was posted at the property on January 6,
2026. I also mailed it certified mail and posted the notice of hearing and here at town hall the violations um the magistrate found for the town are as follows. Section 22135A business tax receipt needed
section 200017 prohibited use and uh Florida building code 105.1 work without permit. Um so this is assessing fine your honor they have not come into compliance. They do not have a business tax receipt for
the business that is at the property or storing at the property. The prohibited use is still there. I did go to the complainant's property which is their direct neighbor to the south on February 27th, 2026 and took pictures that they're still in
non-compliance of storage of material. Um, there is no permits on file for the buildings they have altered or constructed since they bought the property in 2015. So, at this time, the town is requesting a fine of up to $250 per day per
violation as well as administration cost of $4966. And I can submit the full case file once more, your honor, of the updated pictures and whatnot. Mr. >> You here for this one, sir?
>> Yes. >> If you could come to the podium and give me your appearance. >> Good morning, your honor. Defrain from Becker representing the Palenos. >> All right. Right. The code enforcement officer is going to show you the evidentiary case file that the town is asking me to enter into the record. Uh
you feel free to review that. Take as much time as you need. At the end of your review, I'm going to ask you if you have any objection to any of the documents being entered. >> Yes, >> of course. >> Is the microphone we need it? >> Yep. Use it so that the recording picks
you up and I can hear you. Test one, two. Test one, two. Better. Okay. Good morning, your honor. Um, I'd like to take this opportunity to uh give you some background and set the record straight as I become aware of some rumors and some untrue and damaging
statements that have been made publicly about my clients and the use of the property. My clients are an elderly couple who have resided full-time in the property since they purchased it in August of 2015. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Valenuela. Palenuela was in a tragic accident in which he lost his cousin and nearly cost
him his life. Since then, he has suffered severe and life-changing injuries. His activities have been severely limited. It is important to note that this is his home and his castle. He loves tending to the animals, his garden, and the property. It is his
life. It is his life. Currently, there are horses boarded and trained on the property and utilize the barns, paddics, and sand rings on the property. This property has been in residential and agricultural agricultural use since at least 2007. I've heard complaints about regarding
traffic to the subject property, but it is important to point out that there is a commercial nursery to the north of this property that shares the same access road, Fortner Drive. Any allegations of excessive traffic must take this into account. In addition, as requested, there have been a significant amount of plantings
that have been done along the border of the property for screening purposes. It is important to note that my clients have not ignored the town. It is just that some of these violations alleged or actual take time to bring into a compliant into compliance. One of the reasons for the length of time things are taking is that due to
Mr. Paleno's limitations, family members have to find the time to pitch in because they're all working full-time, but they are working toward resolving these issues. And I will say there's been significant progress in bringing this property into compliance.
As of late last month, which was Friday, >> okay, >> uh my clients had hired Stormwater Jay and the plans were submitted at the end of last month and are ready for approval from the town with the grading plans and drainage calculations. The application for permit exemptions for the agricultural buildings was also
submitted and I expect full approval of both of those applications. >> When was that submitted? >> Friday. >> Okay. With regard to the business tax receipts, there were two companies that my client didn't even have knowledge of uh because there were tenants that had
operated their or had filed their uh addresses with that address. Those have been removed from the property and the addresses have been changed in Bispac uh in Sunbis. With regard to GLP farms, we self-reported
that this uh entity which is owned by the Palenuelas which runs the farm operation uh didn't have a business tax receipt. They hired Elevated Expediting Service like two days after like early January and Expediting Service I think
owes Karen some information but uh the daughter-in-law is working on getting the BTR with regard to the prohibited uses. I'm not sure why this is even a violation. It's important to note that the property is grandfathered. The a activities on
this property existed prior to the 27 2017 adoption of this ordinance and the property's grandfather and there's no activity occurring on the property that doesn't fall under either permitted uses prior to the adoption of the ordinance or for property holding an agricultural classification from the property
appraiser. All material equipment used or stored on site relates to the use, maintenance and development of the property and falls under the permitted uses for the property and the photos frankly reflect that. um the Palenos. Now, there are a couple of
residential structures that have a couple of issues. One has uh received a new roof and a roof extension over an existing patio. Uh and they have hired a an engineer to try to make the determination as to what it needs to do, what they need to do to get permits to
bring it into compliance. I expect that report sometime this month. and the other smaller residents uh has it's going to need a much deeper dive, but I expect to have that report this month as well. Uh,
in light of the fact my clients have been working earnestly to resolve the outstanding code violations, I would respectfully request your honor to grant a continuence of 60 days and reset the violation hearings hearings so that we may get the time necessary to gather the information and continue to work on
correcting the violations. Thank you. >> Okay. I guess um what's the town's response and can the town give additional information as it pertains to what he indicated and testified to as it relates to applications that have been submitted
>> I have if you like your honor I've got >> you have copies >> I do >> I mean your testimony that they were submitted Friday is is sufficient um it's Monday so obviously the town has not reviewed anything I I wouldn't presume But um as it relates to the BTR,
I guess I would be interested in in the comment about Miss Gardner Young there being a back and forth or something that would suggest to me that those were submitted earlier than Friday. >> The BTR, I believe, was submitted on January 26th. Uh the the original application on January on that same
date. Um a member of our staff uh indicated that there was need for additional information. um uh as of Thursday or Friday um we had not received that additional information. I don't know whether or not um we have
received anything since then and I was only aware of it late last week because they had hired the service to do this. But it's important to note that's the company we self-reported onto. So the other two we took care of immediately. Uh those were done within a couple of days.
Um >> and I've got the Sunbiz printouts if you like them. >> Okay. And I think with respect to um businesses that are operating there, um my understanding is the original
the original case there was um a construction business of some sort having uh an operation there. Um if that use has been eliminated, as I think Mr. Defrain is indicating um uh we uh should set up an
appointment um to go onto the property to review that. Um otherwise it's difficult for us to for the code enforcement officers to determine whether or not a business is operating or not operating on the site. with respect to reopening
the cases um from a violation standpoint uh that has gone >> that has failed. So this is a fine assessment hearing. I'm interested in the status of compliance on the two violations. I I totally agree that >> if there's a a legal argument as to the
original violations, you know your path to to challenging that and that's not before me this morning um because I already issued an order finding violation in this case. So um that finding has already been made by me. But with that, let's get through the compliance uh items.
So the business tax is applied for but not issued as of today. >> What about building permit applications? There are no building permit applications in. Is there he testified that there was an exemption application? >> Your honor, if I might >> let me hear from them and then I'll go back to you because I just heard your side. I'm trying to get them to clarify
what you said. >> Um Mr. Defrain indicated the copies of an exemption that have been filed. Well, and I don't think it's an exemption. There were two there's a couple residential structures that I don't think there's any question about need um
permits. Uh they're going to be after the fact permits. Um and there was some engineering work and architectural work that needed to be done in order for them to submit. Um if Mr. Defrain has evidence that he submitted on Friday. Um
uh that's fine. If he doesn't have that evidence, I can check we can check with the building uh department uh with a quick break. Your honor, >> go ahead, Mr. Drain. >> Uh with regard to the buildings, there's
a sign there's several buildings on the property. The two residences were still waiting for the engineers report. The a buildings uh are in for permit as is the drainage calculations and the site plan has already been I think that'll be
approved like this week but that got submitted but I don't have anything submitted for the residential yet because we're still waiting for the engineers report. >> Okay. What's the talent's position with regard to his request for a continuence?
Um, I think we'd like to hear when the engineers report is going to be completed with to the the permitting issue. Um, they uh there hasn't been any testimony as to
when they retained the engineer, what the engineer has been doing with respect to the um the building permit issue. Um we are aware that uh they have hired an engineer that has been working on the
FDA. Um and there have been uh meetings and discussions with with respect to the FDA application which is not in front of you today. Um so we do we do understand there's been some diligence. Um but I'm
not sure what's going on with the uh uh the building permit when they retain um the folks. how long um the engineer believes it'll take to um submit the requisite documents um because uh as Mr.
Defrain indicated there's no question with respect to at least two of the buildings that um permits are necessary. >> Yes, your honor, we believe the rest of the buildings are will qualify under the A exemption uh and those have been submitted to the building department for
review. Uh, with regard to the VTR, the only VTR that is outstanding is the one we self-reported. The other two that were cited in the original violation have been taken care of. >> Mr. Suarez, did you pull the the Division of Corporations documents to
confirm? I don't see updated ones in here. Did you review that prior to this hearing? >> The only one I reviewed was the one for the pole arm business that's on site, the complete clearing INC um that remains active but not at that
address. And so, but they're using this property to store the material for that poleb barn business as you can see in the photos. >> So, just because they discontinued on Sunbiz doesn't mean that the operation has ceased operation at that location. So, it's still operating there and still therefore needs a BTR. Is that
>> still using a storage? Correct. >> So, Mr. They're different. And that's not consistent with with what you're saying. >> Even if there are poleb born materials being stored there, they're in compliance with the a the egg use of the property. There's nothing for prohibiting that. This ordinance was
passed after they purchased the property. Number one. Number two, it's an a property. Pullbar material is perfectly acceptable. It's like having horse trailers, >> right? Right. But it's if it's affiliated with a business, just because you discontinued the registration with
Division of Corporations doesn't >> But it's my client's materials. >> That's where I'm >> Well, either way, there there's still one outstanding business tax receipt. So, it doesn't I don't need think I need to get into that, but I would encourage you to get whatever business tax receipts you need. Uh cuz I would expect
you're going to have a compliance issue if the town thinks that you need two and you're only applying for one. >> No, no, we only need one. There's only the only one that's outstanding is the one we self-reported, which is our company, and we're working on that. They actually paid $525 for this company to
take care of it in January. So, I spoke to the daughter-in-law on Thursday, and we're working on getting them to get it the BTR done. >> When When were you retained? Just last week, is that >> No, I was retained like uh mid December.
>> Okay. But you weren't here at the prior hearing, right? >> No, that did not make it onto my calendar. And I apologize to my clients for that because and I can tell you that assistant is no longer with us. >> All right. The difficulty I have for my chair is that this order is from two months ago and and as we sit here today,
everything got submitted on Friday. So I don't see a good faith effort to get in compliance by the date specified in the prior order. Uh especially knowing that that you were retained even as of that time. So, uh, I'm inclined to start a fine. You can always come back and request mitigation of that fine after
the fact, but I'm inclined to to make sure that you continue on. >> Oh, your honor, we are continuing and I and I apologize, but these are complicated issues, you know. >> Well, BTRs and building permits are not. I mean, they're very straightforward applications. So, >> the BTRs that were in violation have already been taken care of back in
January. The only BTR that's outstanding is the one we self-reported, >> right? But that's you that should be applied for and issued within a week. >> Well, but it has been applied for, but they use the service to apply for it. So, I haven't spoken to the service yet, >> right? >> It's a little frustrating to self-report and then get in trouble for it. I mean,
you know, paid $525 to a service called Advance something and they didn't do their job. >> Is the town intending to call witnesses today? >> We had not intended to call any additional witnesses.
All right, this is just a fine assessment hearing. So, this is just whether compliance was achieved by the date I specified in my prior order. I appreciate that you're all here. Um, but I think you are also here, >> your honor, please. >> Oh, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir. Again,
I asked the town if they were intending to call witnesses, and they indicated that they were not. All right, Mr. Drain, do you have anything else? Do you want me to look at the documents that you have? Do you want to admit those? >> Uh, sure. I've got the >> Well, I think we're good on the on the
corporate. I think we're good. Uh, the photographs are very consistent with photographs I took in January with the tractor, etc. U, I think we're good. Thank you. >> Okay. Does the town have anything further?
Um I double check the building program. We have a program called my government online which is where everything gets inputed. There are no building permits that have been submitted and there is no affidavit of non-residential structure either in the program. >> Honor if I may. I do have the
submissions. >> All right. Go ahead and show those uh to Mr. Curts before I take a look. Is that the same documents that Mr. Cart says? Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And Mr. Suarez, while they're working on
that, can you calculate the number of days that you're seeking fines for both uh violations, please? is based on the prior order. >> Yes, your honor. >> Thank you. Mr. Curts, any objection to these documents being entered? >> Um, no. We're seeking verification that they've made it into the system that
that relates to a flood plane development application. Um, and as a part of the flood plane development application, they apparently submitted the um exemption relating to uh non residential agricultural building. So,
um, it may very well be in our files, but just not in the building department yet. >> Oh, it's part of it was submitted as an exhibit to a separate application. Is that >> that's what it that's what it appears to be. And it was submitted on the May 7th or the 28th. >> I think I attached it to the wrong email. I apologize. >> Okay. >> But also, your honor, we've been in
discussion with the town and to figure out what the path would be. So, I don't want you to think we've ignored >> No, they >> the actions. >> Okay. Um, we're not we're not showing these having been entered into our system. However, I
don't doubt that um Mr. Defrain and his client um have been attempting to to do so. Uh but there might be a technical glitch on them hitting the right building, the right uh buttons to to get
it into the system. >> Okay. >> Um so >> so what you're telling Mr. Defrain is to double check and make sure that everything is in. Is that what I'm hearing? >> That is that is my suggestion to Mr. Defrain. Check with our I see they were submitted at 5:26 on Friday. So maybe
that's part of the problem. Yeah. I'll I'll follow up with uh Patrick. >> All right, Mr. Suarez, how many days are you coming up with? >> Seven days, your honor, of non-compliance since January 25th. >> And that's just for the BTR, right? The
other one had a compliance date of February 5th. >> Correct. >> 28 I'm getting 36 days and then 25. I'm getting 25 days on the ladder. Is that what you're getting, Mr. Sorz?
How >> How many days, your honor? 25. >> Yes. >> 25. All right. Anything further from the town? Mr. Defin, anything further from you? I was just asking you
to wave the BTR violation since we came in compliance of the companies that were complained of prior to our self-reporting the one company. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll take all that into consideration. Once you get the business tax receipt issued, you can request from the town to come back to me. Once you're
in full compliance in this case, you can come back to me for fine mitigation hearing and I will certainly take all that into consideration. I just want to make sure that whoever you've hired gets through the process and gets through it as quickly as possible because >> understood. Uh, nobody's appearance at the prior hearing did I I even gave you 60 days at that hearing, which is should have been enough time to get through the
process. My job in this chair is not to be punitive. So, I'm willing to to remove some of the fines once you have the the required permits in hand. Um, but I want to make sure you get there and I want to make sure you get there as quickly as you can. So, the way to do that is to start fines running so that
there is a an exaggeration of of the need to get this done as quickly as you can um based on the order that I issue today. So, with that, let me uh just procedurally enter in respondents exhibits. I've marked them as R2. I'm going to put them in the case file. I'll admit those uh
without objection by the town just so the case file is clear, and I'll ask the town to uh punch these and and keep them as part of the file for uh record purposes. And with that, in case C25-52, I've admitted uh the town's evidentiary
case files composite exhibit 1 without objection, as well as respondents exhibits R2 without objection. I'll find based on the uh testimony of the code enforcement officer and the documents in the file which include an affidavit of um service that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll
find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of the code enforcement officer uh and of respondents council that the respondents remain in violation of section 22-135A uh as well as 20-017 and 105.1 my prior
order finding violation from January required compliance for the BTR section 22-135A hon or before January 25th because of the non-compliance I'm going to assess a fine in the amount of $9,000. That's for 36-day period from January 26th through
today. Uh that $9,000 fine will continue to acrew at $250 a day until compliance is achieved. My prior order required respondent to comply with sections 20-017 and 105.1 of the Florida Building Code on or before February 5th. based on
uh the testimony this morning that both of those violations remain. I'm going to assess a fine for those uh sections in the amount of $6,250, which is for a 25day period from February 6 through today, March 2nd. And
that fine amount will continue to acrue at $250 per day until compliance is achieved. Um again, as I stated, you have the opportunity once your your client has complied to come back to me for fine mitigation. And I would ask that if you come back to me at that hearing, you bring all of the documents
and all of the information that that shows me that your permit runner or whoever you hired uh failed on the job. And I'll certainly take that into consideration uh in that ruling. Um because the town does have additional administrative costs for today's hearing, I will assess those in the
amount of $49.66 and then I'll ask the town if the administrative costs on the prior hearing were paid. >> I don't believe they were. No, ma'am. All right. So, this order will reaffirm the uh January administrative costs in
the amount of 23405 so that everything is in one order >> and you'll get an order Mr. Drain that uh reflects all of that. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Appreciate it. Next case.
>> Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, we're going to take number 10, which is a request for authorization to foreclose on leans Lantana Holdings LLC. Cases number 2301003 and 2301006. address 16169 Southern Boulevard, PCN
number 414043 3600 01020. Code sections 87-030 removal permits and ULDC 20-017 prohibited uses were previously found in violation of the town's unified land
development code. An affidavit of non-compliance dated September 16, 2025 was previously recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County, Florida on September 17th, 2025 at book 3601, pages 1670-1671.
An order assessing fines for the above reference cases was heard on October 6, 2025 and was recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County, Florida on October 10th, 2025 at book 3656, pages 1560 through 1562. This order assessing
fines has been recorded for more than 90 days as per Florida statute 162.093. The lean amount for the above reference cases total 100 I'm sorry $496,500 as of today's hearing and continues to acrew at a rate of $250 per day per case
until full compliance is achieved. The town is requesting authorization to foreclose on the lean >> compliance officer Deanna Thomas town of Lockahhatche Groves. I've been previously sworn. Um,
so the request, the notice of request for authorization of foreclosure was done on February 13, 2026 for the case numbers 2301003 and 2301006.
Um, I did email the notice of request for authorization of foreclosure to all parties. Uh, which I have in the case file here a copy of that email. It was dated
Thursday, February 19th. However, on uh 217, the property was posted and there's pictures in the file showing the posting and the letter was also mailed regular and certified mail to the
property owners Lantana Holdings LLC as listed in the property appraiser records. I did receive a signed green card back from Lantana Holdings LLC and that is in the file also. And I do have an affidavit of service in the file.
>> And when did you mail the certified mail? >> The certified mail was mailed on February 13th. >> Okay. >> Does that conclude your testimony? Oh, yes, ma'am. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. Your name, sir?
>> Good morning, your honor. Dwayne Dickerson on behalf of the property owner, Lantana Holdings LLC. >> Spell your first name for me just so I get it right. >> It's Dwayne. D W A Y N E. >> Thank you. >> And good morning, Judge. Cody German on behalf of the tenant.
>> All right. So, you represent >> Thank you for allowing me to attend remotely. >> Thank you, Mr. German. So, you, Mr. Dickerson, represent Lantana Holdings? >> Yes, ma'am. I represent the property on Atlanta Holdings. >> And Mr. German is a familiar face in these cases.
Mr. German, your representation is the same. What What is it? Who is it that you represent? Furpings. >> That's correct. Furpings. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Mr. Dickerson, I will let you go first. Uh, Miss Thomas, could you show Mr. Dickerson your case file as
it relates to the notice documents? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Hey, good morning. >> Thank you. >> And same thing I told the previous council, take as much time as you need to review. At the end, I'm going to ask if you have any objection uh to those
documents being entered. It looks into order. I haven't I don't see any issues. >> No objection at this time. >> Mr. German, were you provided a copy of the case file in advance? >> I was. >> All right. Any objection to that case file being entered? >> No objection.
>> Thank you, sir. And I guess uh since you're here today, Mr. Dickerson, Mr. German has appeared at these hearings previously. I don't know if you all are are in collaboration or not, but I presume there's no objection to him also testifying. Is that accurate or
>> Well, so I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. German for the first time this past Friday. Okay. I am rather new to the case as you know. So, uh this morning I will be requesting respectfully a continuence of 60 days to get my arms around everything because I am the new kid on the block with the
case. Okay. >> On behalf of the property owner, I have had an opportunity to meet with staff um and to your town attorney. Um I think we met on February the 10th and I was made aware of the town's position with all the code issues. Um and so then we've
submitted a request for all of the background documentation regarding this case on that request was submitted on February the 11th. You know, the town is still working to provide those documents to me. Um, so I haven't had a chance to review those documents and there's just
a lot of moving parts. So, you know, I will be involved um from here on out on behalf of the property owner. Uh, it is our goal to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with the tenants attorney um to hopefully get cooperation that's needed
to resolve these matters. But I would respectfully request um that this hearing be continued for 60 days. And and one other thing I just wanted to note as in speaking with the town there was some um question of the bonds and there were if you may I'm sure you're
aware but there were there was a settlement agreement. It's my understanding that the tenant was required to post certain bonds um and to comply those cases once those bonds were actually posted. uh my client just as I was sitting here sent me some copies of
the bonds from 20 from May 14th of 2023. So I would like an opportunity and I don't you know I don't want to throw this on you right now but I would like an opportunity to see if the town's position is that those bonds were actually posted uh as as required by the settlement agreement and that they still
are active and in place. One of the bonds was for $72,740 and and that bond lists the scope of work as milling services and it says to cover the removal of site improvements.
There was a second bond for $572,625 and it says that scope of service was for tree mitigation. Says this B bond covers installation of site improvements. And then the last bond was for $30,000 and it states it was for demolition. It says this bond covers removal of site improvements. Like I
say, the copies that I received as I'm sitting in the hearing were dated May 14th of 2023. So, I would like to understand that those bonds are still active and it's the town hopefully the town would agree that they are and they're posted. Um, and if they're not, that's obviously another thing that I'd
have to dig into uh as soon as possible. So, that's why I'm requesting the continuence. But I do want to make it clear for the record that my client has authorized me to take um take charge and to make sure that whatever needs to be done is done to resolve this matter
amicably with the town. >> Okay. >> Does the town want to respond to the request for continuance? Uh this matter, as you know, your honor, has been going on uh for what seems like
forever, um many years. And um there was the order that was entered back in there were two orders entered back in September with respect to um these large amounts of fine assessment.
It has now been five months by my account um since um that September proceeding. Um, in order to come into compliance with
the order, uh, the orders, the either the tenants or the owners, uh, were supposed to, um, initiate a process um, for
um, land use and zoning approval for the operations or discontinue the operations. Those are two ways that they could have begun coming into compliance. Discontinuence obviously would come into compliance with the the use violation.
Um and there is a a vegetative uh there is a mitigation bond. It is not the mitigation bond that um council just became aware of. there is a new bond that was required to secure uh
performance on the vegetation removal. Um and either one of them could have submitted that bond. Um we have not received any such bond. We have not received any claim. Um and we'll be happy to take a look at what Mr.
Dickerson has in place. We have not received any claim that um any bond uh existing or otherwise is sufficient to meet that requirement. Um and we have heard
almost on a I would say on a weekly basis um that the submittals for uh the land use and reszoning applications were going to be forthcoming in the next two weeks. We
continue down this path. Um so we would object to any continuence of the the matter. um we don't believe that uh either case is in compliance. Um they
certainly will have an opportunity to come into compliance. And as your honor is aware, um the next step from the town's perspective is to do a business analysis and take the matter to the uh
the town council to determine whether or not there would actually be a filing of a foreclosure action um in that time period. uh
both the owner and the tenant um can submit and explain their situations and try to determine whether they're in compliance and um they can always pay off the the outstanding amount on the leans to avoid the foreclosure action.
So, we would object to the continuence of this proceeding um and uh request your authorization to move forward. >> All right. Uh does the town have a copy of the recorded fine assessment order?
>> Give me just a moment to look in this file, please. >> And your honor, when it's appropriate, I would like to >> I'll absolutely give you an opportunity. Thank you, sir. And Mr. German, don't worry. I'll give you an opportunity as well. >> Thank you.
>> You might as well quicker than me. Corners. Okay, I'm going do that. Okay. Can I An order uh assessing fines for the above reference case was heard on October 6, 2025. She would like
>> I'd like to see a copy of it. >> And in the future on these, if you could put a copy in the file and the other the big file. Can you print it? >> Oh, sorry. I should be this way. >> If we could take a threem minute break.
>> Sure. It's 10:03. I'll take a three-minute recess uh while there's a little bit of printing. >> 156. >> Yeah, >> that's a recorded one. 17. >> So I
was 10 years. >> Yeah. We told them it had to be double. >> No, we didn't. >> I think they didn't eat or >> that was this is but this is 572.
>> Wow. It doesn't want to crash. Huh? >> Yeah. Same day. It happens. >> Yes. in the process of making a copy of this file. All the files she hasn't got finished with
Can you grab everyone else shoe? >> Yeah. >> Wasn't on the tent. But it's doesn't show the recording. I want the one showing the recording. >> I think I was just handed it. Let me get back on the record and then I'll make sure.
>> I just don't have the one. >> She went to the parties. two years still >> mid I think we have the same >> I gave midi a copy of the order >> thank you Karen >> all right everybody's back in the room so I'll reconvene it's 10:09 hopefully
everybody's back uh on the computer can hear us again and I've been handed a copy of the order assessing fine in cases 2301003 and 2301006 which shows a recording date of 101025
at book 36056 page 1560 duplicates cases. >> This is two. >> It is two cases. >> They work combined. >> All right. And Mr. Curts, just a question for you. Um, there's nothing in
the in the stipulation agreement for these cases that prohibits your authority to seek foreclosure. >> No, you may recall that the stipulation agreement um was null and void with the exception of those uh
penalty assessments. >> Okay. All right. Uh let me give Mr. Dickerson go ahead. So your honor, I like I said, I did request all these documents and I know towns kind of putting their records together. So this is the first time I'm
seeing this is I I've yet to see the settlement agreement and so I'm not sure what the settlement agreement if anything what how it speaks to foreclosure. You know, I'm sure Mr. Kurts has looked at it plenty and so you know, he knows, but I have not seen that. Um and then also
Mr. Kurts said one option is to pay the lean and I understand that. I hope at some point you would also entertain an option to mitigate the lean if I have the proper justification to do so in determining what final amounts may be due. So I just wanted to preserve my
opportunity to mitigate in the future if possible. Um and then some of this I know Mr. German has been around. So maybe he can add some uh or shed some light on the bonds, what's in place, what's not in place, and also the tenants um the tenants status of
submitting applications or anything that that they are obligated to do. Um, once again, as the landlord's attorney, I I understand our position here, but um, I really I I think some of your decision- making in terms of whether or not to
authorize a a foreclosure have to do with good faith or bad faith or what efforts have been taken or not taken and what has been done, you know, in furtherance of trying to achieve compliance, not just penalty. So, um, so that's why hopefully maybe some of that
background will will be part of your decision-m this morning. >> All right, Mr. German, I'm going to give you an opportunity, but let me just, uh, so we're all clear as to where we sit here this morning. So, these foreclosure authorization hearings under 162 are are pretty limited actually in my authority.
So, these are almost um ministerial hearings, if you will, for lack of a better better phrase. But basically, if I check the box, if the town gives me the evidence and I can check the box that there's outstanding leans, they've been outstanding for a period of 90 days, they were recorded in
the public record, the inquiry is very limited is my point to you. It's it's really not about my discretion. It's about does the evidence that's before me meet the the statutory criteria for me to authorize foreclosure. Again, as Mr. Curts I think was alluding to if I'm if
I authorize foreclosure today that doesn't mean a foreclosure hearing gets started tomorrow. It's just the first step that they need for them to for them being the town to pursue a foreclosure uh case in circuit court. But um my order doesn't actually initiate that
process. That's a secondary process that happens uh that the town initiates that I have nothing to do with. Uh but this is a required step in that process. So with that said, just so everybody understands that this is less about facts, only about facts that are related to the the specific statutory criteria
that are set forth in 162. So with that, Mr. German, let me give you an opportunity to speak uh and then we'll go from there. >> Yeah, I I won't take up too much oxygen today. Um I certainly would support um Mr. uh Dickerson having additional time
to get up to speed. It is true. The first time he and I spoke was last week. they had a prior attorney who was less involved up to this point. So, um, clearly there are things that my client is in the process of trying to obtain
and to to cure, but as I said here today, I don't have any development that I can bring to the magistrate's attention um, in that regard that would give any certainty as far as the date. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. German. Um, and I guess one additional question for the
town before I make my ruling. I don't see a pop-up print out. Is this property homestead property? >> No, it is not. >> All right. Thank you. All right. So, with that, and Mr. Dickerson, just so you know, I've I've heard uh many cases
on this property over the years, and as Mr. Curts indicated, and I can certainly uh attest, this has been going on for quite some time. So, my expectation, though I don't know this to be true, I expect that the town is is asking me for this authorization to make sure that there is some movement towards uh compliance. That's that's what I think
I'm hearing between the lines. But as I said today, 162 um basically asks me to determine whether there are leans, whether they've been outstanding for 3 months, uh whether they remain unpaid, um whether or not the property is homesteaded. That that's basically the extent of my inquiry this morning. That
said, I would encourage you to continue to talk to the town. Uh I think there's there's probably some benefit to to continuing that discussion. And if if your client is really interested in getting this resolved, there's certainly a path to do that, but that path is with the town uh less with with myself uh based on where we are in the in the code
enforcement process. Um so with that, I'll ask the town if it has anything further before I make my ruling. >> Nothing. >> All right. And these orders have been combined. So the town the parties are amendable to continuing combined one combined order in this case. Is that
accurate? >> Yes, your honor. as far as the countdown's concerned. >> Mr. Dickerson, any objection to that? >> Uh, I just abstain actually until I have an opportunity to review that. But I but I do appreciate the I understand the position you're in. I know that code section very well or state statute
rather. Um, so I just appreciate the opportunity. >> Yeah, I I appreciate your testimony. I just wanted you so when I make my ruling, you understand where I'm my hands are are a bit tied in in this hearing based on where we are in the process. >> So So I won't go home and tell people you were mean to me. >> That's right. Thank you, sir. That's that's that's what I'm after. Thank you,
sir. I'll confirm it if you need it if anyone asks. >> Mr. Dickerson, >> perfect. Thank you, Mr. German. >> Was very nice and professional to you. >> All right. Thank you, sir. And with that, uh, in cases 2301003 and 2301006,
I will, uh, admit the town's evidentiary case file, which now also includes, let me ask before I do that, Miss Thomas, can you show Mr. Dickerson this, uh, recorded order before I put it in the case file? >> Yes, ma'am. Mr. Dickerson, can you just take a look
at that and let me know if you have any objection to that being put in the case file? >> Yes, ma'am. >> I have no objection at this time. >> Thank you, Mr. Dickerson and Mr. German, just for your knowledge, that's a it's a copy of the order assessing fine that uh was recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County the at the book and
page that's on the agenda 36056 page 1560 on October 10, 2025. Uh it's in the public record. So, um but just so you know, that's what I'm also looking at and that will be placed in the case file. >> Got it.
>> Thank you, sir. So, with that, I will enter the town's uh evidentiary case files composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll ask the town to stamp or uh punch holes rather in this order assessing fine and and have that be made part of the official record uh for today's hearing.
I'll find based on the testimony of the code enforcement and other town staff uh that the statutory criteria 162 for my granting forclosure authorization have been met. Namely that the uh fines on the property remain outstanding and that
a certified copy of the order assessing fine has been recorded in the in the public records for a period of uh 3 months at least 3 months uh and that the property is not a homestead property. So, uh, based on those findings, I will issue an order that grants, uh, the
authority to the town to pursue, uh, foreclosure, uh, in the, uh, referenced cases, and you'll get a copy of an order that authorizes that foreclosure after today's hearing. Mr. German, I presume the town, uh, will also get a copy of that order to you as well. >> Thank Thank you. Uh and just before I
conclude my ruling on this case, uh so the record is very clear, there was an affidavit of service in the case file as well as a signed certified mail uh showing that the uh parties had good service and the town had good service for today's hearing. My order will also reflect that. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
>> Both for your appearances. >> Thank you. Have a good >> Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to attend electronically. >> Of course. Thank you, sir. One moment. >> Next. Next case. >> Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Whenever you hear me quit talking, you can feel you don't
have for me. get up a moment to so we don't have the copying issues here. I'm just making sure that she's got the copies of the orders available in there. Um so that we can submit.
>> Okay. >> And I want to I also review. >> Okay. So you want a fivem minute recess, >> please. >> All right. So it's 10:19. We'll take a fivem minute recess. >> Thank you. Hello. That's
okay. Yeah, absolutely. >> Yes. >> Okay, I'll do the meeting today. Are you ready? >> I did 5 minutes. So, do we need to wait till Okay. All right, it's 10:24, so I'll reconvene
the hearing. Town call it next case. >> Thank you. Um, there are three cases under an order granting continuence for foreclosure authorization from the February 2nd, 2026 hearing. Um, one of the items number eight, Escu Farms, case
number 2340012. We'd be seeking a continuence to April 6th. Uh case number seven and number nine which I will read in. We are prepared to proceed today. Number seven, Skew Farms LLC. Case number 2018-0574,
address 1300D Road, PCN number 4141431701450010. Code section ULDC article 5 section 040 finds as follow foreclosure. The lean for the violations has acred through March 2nd, 2026 to $358,350
and will continue to acrue at $150 per day. Number eight, SQ Farms LLC. Case number 2340012, address 13000D Road. PCN number 4141-431701450010. Code section 20-051
uh A1 recreational vehicles 20-050 A2 recreational vehicles 20-05085 recreational vehicles fines as followed for forclosure to the lean for the violations have acrewed through March 2nd 2026 to $243,719
and we continue to acrue at $250 per day. This is the continuence one we'd be requesting. >> Yeah. Let me ask you to stop there. If these are going to be separate orders, if we can just do them one by one, okay, that's fine. You've read seven and eight, so I'll I won't make you reread eight, but just go ahead and pause there and we'll let's let's entertain seven
now and then we'll go forward. >> Uh, one correction with respect to um seven. Uh, the town is only seeking um binds through 731 2025 um which would and which would be an
amount of $326,250. That's the amount that we are seeking to foreclose upon that. Turn it over to Tiana Thomas previously sworn. Um so this is for case
2018-0574. Um we have uh taken the amount of the three $326,250 um is $32,000 less from the 358.
Um we have taken off $214 days and that was at the request of our town attorney. So that's where the 326 comes into play. Now, >> do you have the order? >> Uh, yes, I do have Sorry, Jeff. I do
have the order in the file. Um, order assessing fine. It was recorded on 518 of 2023. So, it has been more than 90 days. Um, and I do have that in the file for your records.
>> Service. >> Uh, I do have an affidavit of service. Um, plus there was um an attorney and we stipulated they had an attorney present and we stipulated to the service for the
continuence of this hearing. Um, and I do have proof that I did mail out on February 17th the um the order granting continuence foreclosure authorization
hearing and that is in the file as well. And there's pictures in the file showing posted at the property as well on the same date, February 17th. >> And you mailed what you were indicating that you mailed was by certified mail. >> Certified mail. Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> All right. And the respondents, there's nobody left in the room. So I presume you gentlemen are on the phone or on the uh computer argu for this case. Is that correct? >> Yes. Good morning, your honor regq. And uh from the time that we met last, and this is my third appearance before,
your honor, uh till now, uh we've had a meaningful conversation with uh and a a conference with with the town and town attorney in trying to come to some resolution without proceeding with a foreclosure. And uh obviously, your
honor, you made it very clear in the prior hearing and being diligent in listening to it. It's very clear uh of almost a ministerial function of proceeding with the authorization to to um to foreclose. Um while the
authorization to foreclose may not uh create an immediate foreclosure action um uh this is the the standard procedure. Um we we're a little bit uh this is a little bit different situation
in that I stepped in uh way late and um and and attorney Chris has been very very accommodating. Um uh in in helping uh me try to come to an understanding of
this case. Uh unfortunately uh my brother-in-law Hampton Keane who's also an attorney here long-standing attorney got a very good vibrant healthy uh practice. He passed away uh at age 59
and my sister who has not been practicing for many years um has had to pick up the ball and we've been in the process of trying to get an inventory attorney um and get things in place. So, I've been assisting her with that and
trying to move and manage files without being the assigned inventory attorney. I'm simply not a personal injury lawyer. I I say these things as just uh considerations uh to take into account because what we
would like to do is continue our meaningful negotiations with the uh with the town. And uh I was first prepared to ask for the stars, which would be 90 days, because these two chunks of 30-day increments has just
not been enough. But I know uh how pressing it's been for the town to get these moving forward. I just think that we'd be able to come to a meeting of the minds within 60 days. And I I just um
and the other attorney asked for the same 60. And I'm I'm very sensitive to uh equal treatment. It's just this particular uh set of circumstances with um with my brother-in-law passing the
funeral was on um on Friday. So anyway, um it would be understandable that you would want to proceed in spite of that. Uh I just believe that we've had some very good progress in in
reconciliation. I did not know uh that the town attorney had so sponte reduced the amount requested by a couple hundred days plus or minus and uh of course we're not here to look a gift horse in
the mouth on calculations but we're uh we're just looking for a couple months if if the town would give us that consideration. Uh we're very appreciative for giving the last 30 days and your honor it's all your discretion
but I I I'm not here to be able to uh stand here and uh wave objections without knowing uh materially the case having stepped in at at the at the point that I did. So, um, and I would want to
give specific objections to anything, but I I'm just not prepared to to do anything other than, uh, remain on bended knee for a 60-day request for an extension. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
Uh, Mr. Stan, did you receive a copy of the case file before the hearing? >> Uh, no, I did. I did not. Uh, we did wave at the last hearing service. Okay, >> Mr. Stanbon and his client have had an opportunity to review the um case files
in detail as evidenced by uh meetings that we have had. >> Yeah, we had a very good meaningful meeting and Mr. Kurtz was extremely helpful. Uh I I I cannot uh I cannot argue with that one bit.
All right. So, just so you're clear, Mr. Standby, the documents that I'm looking at in the case file, uh there's an affidavit of service. You were you appeared at the last hearing where I granted the continuance. So, you had actual service of today's hearing, but the town also posted to the property uh the prior order with today's hearing
date on it. >> Yeah. We're not contesting service, your honor, of today's hearing at all. >> All right. And then also in the case file, there's a copy of the prior order U in case 2018-0574 that was recorded on May 18th, 2023 at
book 34309, page 277. There's a three-page order, the continuence order that I issued in February. There's a copy of that. And then the prior uh affidavit for that
which you uh stipulated to at the prior hearing. So, do you have any objection to this case file being entered into the record? >> I have no objection, your honor. >> All right. Thank you.
>> And you heard what I said. I guess let me ask the town. Does the town have a response to his request for continuance? >> Once again, these matters have been uh going on for some time and uh we think we need to move forward. Um while
compliance has been achieved um we need to resolve the outstanding amounts due. >> All right. And uh one question for the town. I don't see a property appraiser print out in here. Is this property homesteaded?
>> No, it is not. >> That is correct, your honor. Not homesteaded. All right. Thank you. And you uh indicated that you heard what I said to the to the prior council on the prior case. You know that my job from this chair today is is whether or
not I can check the boxes in terms of 162 uh to grant the foreclosure authorization. So, uh I'm inclined to do that based on um my having granted you a continuence in the past. I again uh express my condolences. I understand you're in a um in a situation where you
have a lot more on your plate than you otherwise would. Um but that said, this is an order from 2018. So, I'm going to proceed uh in granting the the town's request uh just because the the statutory criteria have been met. I don't expect and I'll encourage you to do the same thing that I encouraged the
prior council to continue to have your meaningful discussions with the town. Um my issuing an order authorizing foreclosure doesn't start the foreclosure process. uh there are additional steps that the town would have to undertake. So, um my hope is that you can continue to have your discussions uh in that interim period
and and hopefully resolve things there. Um but based on the fact that that the evidence that's before me this morning suggests that the the criteria in the statute have been satisfied, um I I it doesn't seem like there's there's a need for me to do anything other than than
grant the request. Um, and again, hopefully you can continue this without there actually being a foreclosure uh case initiated. Um, but based on what I have before me, I'm going to go ahead and grant the request. Um, so with that, let's start in in seven, I guess. Anything else you'd like me to hear
before I make my ruling, Mr. Stanbaw? >> Uh, no, your honor. >> All right. Anything further from the town in this case? >> No, your honor. >> All right. All right. In case 2018-0574, and just so the parties are clear, my orders don't reflect those monetary amounts. The lean amounts are what they
are based on your documents uh that the town has on file in terms of compliance affidavit and everything like that. So, I don't actually make a ruling as it relates to the fine. The testimony I need is that the fine amounts uh based on the order remain unpaid, which I've heard this morning. So, my order will not reflect the number. That's for you
and the town. Um then they'll they'll have to report that in their foreclosure uh case if they in fact bring one. But my order will not reflect the monetary amounts. I appreciate the clarification just so the parties are on the same page, but uh my ruling will not deal with the monetary amounts uh as it relates to the lean. So with that, in
case 2018-0574, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit 1 without objection. I'll find based on uh respondents council's actual knowledge of today's hearing as well as the affidavit of
posting in the case file that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the documents in the case file and the testimony of town staff that the statutory criteria in 162 have been met in terms of the uh certified copy of an
order assessing fine having been recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County on May 18th, 2023 at book 34309 page 277. I'll find based on the testimony of town staff that that lean remains unpaid uh
and that the property is not homesteaded. So, I will sign an order that authorizes the town to foreclose on this property based on that 2018 uh excuse me, 2023 lean that was recorded. And then number eight has been read into
the records. So, >> we the town's requesting a continuence on that um matter until your the April 6th um hearing. Um and I don't know if Mr. Stanbo has any objection to that matter being
continued at this time. >> Uh no objection, your honor. >> All right. Uh in order to proceed with the continuence, I need to have testimony as it relates to the notice documents for today's hearing. I think we've got a stipulation as to service from council.
>> So stipulated. >> You're stipulating to today's service, sir. >> Yes, your honor. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> And April 6th was the date you said, Mr. Curts. >> I think that's our next meeting. >> Yes.
>> All right. With that, in case 23040012, uh, having the record reflect that Mr. Stanbot has stipulated to service for today's hearing, I will grant the mutually agreed continuence and reset this, uh, foreclosure authorization
hearing on April 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. >> Thank you. All right. Number nine. Number nine, SQ Farms LLC. Case number 23050020. Address 1300D road. PCN number
4141431701450010. Code sections 05-040 A throughB. Permits required. Expiration of permits and development orders. ULDC 175-110. permits required 175-170 general
175-240 authority fines as follow for the for fines as follows for foreclosure the lean for the violations through March 2nd 2026 have acrewed to $215,71855 and will continue to acrew at $250 per day
officer Deanna Thomas town of Lockahhatche Groves previously sworn Uh for case number 23050020 um at again at the request of the town attorney uh 214 days of have come off uh
the amount uh so the compliance date would be 7 July 31st 2025 um and that would be 53,500 off of the 215 215,00 718.555
which brings it to $162,21855. There is in the file um a recorded order assessing fine um dated November 8th, 2023. Um and you will be able to see that in
the file. There is also um I mailed the uh or the the notice February 11th, 2026 regular and certified mail. I did post the property as well and those are in
your file for posting as well. Um and then we also have um what grants the compliance of 731 2025. There's an FDA that was approved um on that date
and that is in the file also for your review. >> All right. Do you have your case file? I do. And I suspect Mr. Stanba is willing to stipulate his disservice on this matter as well. >> Yes, I am.
>> Thank you, Mr. Stanbo. And Miss Thomas, the lean remains unpaid. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And is this property homestead property? >> No, it is not. >> That is correct. >> All right, Mr. Standby. The case file
that I'm looking at uh has a permit application in it. It has USPS tracking for the certified mail which you stipulated to service. So on the right side, there's a copy of the order assessing fine for case 23050020
that was recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County on November 8th, 2023 at book 34659, page 1381. And that's a certified copy. And there's a copy of the previous order that I granted the continuence on at the prior
February 2nd hearing and the service documents for that hearing. Do you have any objection to the town's case file being entered into the record, sir? >> No, your honor. >> All right, Mr. Stanbot, anything you want me to hear in this case? >> No, your honor.
>> And the town is seeking to proceed uh with authorization today. Is that correct? >> That's correct, >> okay? All right. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing, your honor. >> All right. All right. In case 23050020, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case
file as composite exhibit one. Without objection, I will find based on the notice documents uh the stipulation I guess first and foremost a stipulation by Mr. standby as the service as well as his actual uh notice at the prior hearing
that there's sufficient legal service to proceed today based on the documents in the case file in the testimony of town staff uh the property meets the statutory criteria and that a lean was recorded uh in this case on November 8th, 2023. The lean remains unpaid. It's
been unpaid for uh the lean's been recorded for more than uh 3 months and the property is not homesteaded. So with that, I will sign an order that uh grants the town authorization to foreclose in this matter. >> Thank you, your honor.
>> And that appears to be everything. Is that correct? >> Your honor, before we go, um if we can go back to case number two under new business, which was steading trust title holders, 14327 Tangerine Drive. Turns out we do have an affidavit from them.
So they are in compliance. You had originally entered the order violation. >> Okay. When did they comply? Before the date specified in the notice of violation. >> Yes, I believe they did. Yes. >> So you are requesting that that my prior
ruling be amended to I guess I guess I'll because nobody was here on this one. I'll just issue an order finding no violation and specifying the compliance date. So, what was the date of compliance that you >> um it was April 3rd?
>> 26. And for the record, I'm reopening KC-26-18. Um, and based on the additional testimony from the town that the property came into compliance on April 3rd, which was prior to the date specified in the
notice of violation, I will um resend my prior ruling uh verbally on the record and I will sign an order that finds uh no violation on the property given that compliance. science uh and then therefore obviously no administrative costs uh in the case. So
there'll be an order that finds no violation that I'll sign. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> And now we appear to be done. >> Yes, we are. >> All right. So with that, I'll adjourn the hearing. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, your honor. >> Thank you, sir.