All right, good morning everyone. I'm going to call to order the town of Lockachi Grove special magistrate hearing. It's May 4th. Uh Verizon says it's 9:01, so we can get started. Um my name is Andy Bernard. I'm a special magistrate for this morning's hearing. The first thing I'm going to do is swear anybody in who's here to testify on any
items that are on today's agenda. So if you're here for code enforcement, if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hands. And let me ask town staff, is there anybody on the computer that I need to know about? Yeah, >> Aaron is on the computer and so is Frank Orond. >> Is Frank a respondent or is Frank the
town? >> Yes, >> Frank. Mr. Orond, can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Can you turn your video on for me, please? Thank you, sir. Uh, if you're going to be speaking on the agenda on any items on the agenda today, I need to swear you
in so I can now see you. Can you raise your right hand for me? Thank you. Now, do you all in the room and sir on the computer, do you all swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You all may be seated. Thank you, Mr. Orman. You can turn your camera off until uh your case is called.
With that, a little bit about process. It looks like nearly all of the items on today's agenda are either violation hearings or fine assessment hearings. So, when you hear your case called, it appears that all town staff is sitting at the table in front of me. You'll come to the podium that is over here to my right or your left. Uh the town will go
first. They will call uh their case. They will present the evidentiary case file that they wish me to enter into the record. They will call any witnesses they have. They'll explain the case to me. Um present anything that they want me to hear. Once the town has concluded its presentation, it's then your turn to present whatever you've brought with you
today. Cross-examine any witnesses that the town has put on. Uh and tell me or show me anything that you've brought with you today uh as it relates to your case. So once I've heard from both sides, I'll make a final ruling and you'll get a copy of an order that reflects that ruling after the hearing today. So keep in mind that all of your testimony is given under oath this
morning. Um for the record before I turn it over to the town, I did review all the minutes that are listed from July 7, August 4, August 22nd, April 6, 2026, and April 15th. And I'll approve those minutes as drafted. And with that, I'll turn it to the town to call its first case.
Um before >> uh your magistrate before we go on with that I have one um correction to make on page number five item number 13. F Road
Properties LLC is being removed. They complied. >> All right. Thank you. Let the record show that case is being pulled. The town presents its first case. Item number six, Phyllis L. Ashton and Robert
W. Ashton Jr. Case number CE 2665 14625 Okachobee Boulevard PCN number 4141-43 1701 31200020 violation sections code of ordinances
2022 22-135A business tax receipts BTR yield DC40-010 property maintenance >> John Suarez on behalf Groves presenting case C2665
notice of violation notice posted on the property 26 um I mailed a copy of the NOVA certified on the same day March 13 2026 and again it's here
um we have agreed the town is requesting 120day continuance on the matter Yeah, if we can come up with the date of the hearing that you're requesting to reset that to. So, are you not intending you're just doing a strict continuence? No hearing on the merits today or are
you giving them 120 days to comply or are you resetting the matter? >> Strict continuence. >> Okay. All right. Right. So then all I need to see uh to proceed is the case file as it relates to service for today's hearing.
>> And is anybody present for this case? >> Yes, your honor. Who's here for 14625 Okchobee Road? >> Is that you? Can you come to the podium for me? >> Me? >> Yes. Whoever's going to speak, either or
both. Are you okay to stand or would you rather be seated? >> Are you okay to stand or would you rather be seated? >> Okay. Okay. All right. All right. So, the town is telling me that they're in agreement that you guys have spoken and they're in an agreement to reset this for hearing
in 120 days. Is that correct? You're in agreement with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Suarez, can I ask you just to show um this respondent and ma'am, what is your name for the record?
>> Ellis L. Ashton. >> Thank you. Just show her the uh notice documents for this morning. He's going to show you the notice documents for this morning's hearing. >> Can we put just a wall, you know, >> that mess is mine. Thank you.
>> There's all the paperwork I sense. Did you want them to go buy everything or anything? >> Oh, I don't have copies to take home or anything. >> You get your copy. >> Get me copies and then I can take them home.
Okay. And read it. >> Do you have any objection of what you see in front of me? >> No. information. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I think 120 days gets us to September. Is that correct?
>> Yes. Yes. September 1st is 120 days. >> Is that a hearing date? September 1st is a Tuesday. The first hearing date would be September 8th, the second Tuesday. >> Okay. >> All right. Right. So, ma'am, just so you
understand, um, what he showed you is just a notice documents for this morning's hearing because for me to even reset this for another date, I have to make sure that they had legal service on you this morning. You're here, so it probably worked. Um, but either way, I have an affidavit of posting showing me that they posted the notice of violation and notice of hearing to your property.
So, um, the town had good service, and it looks like you also signed the certified mail that you received. So, what they're asking me to do today is not find any violations, not consider the evidence, just to continue the matter until September 8th. Okay? So, that means you're going to come back. You're either going to get everything
into compliance and not have to come back or if you're not in compliance and you you're the town still needs you to come back before me before a hearing, you're going to come back on September 8th. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. And you'll get an order after the hearing that has that date and time on it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Anything else you'd like me to hear?
>> No, not really. >> All right. Anything further from the town? Nothing further. >> All right. In case CE-26-65, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll enter just the notice
documents that are in that case file, which include both an affidavit of posting and a signed certified mail showing that the town had legal service for this morning's hearing. So, we can proceed. Uh, given mutual agreement of the parties, I will reset
this matter for a violation hearing on September 8th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. So, you'll get an order that reflects that date in the mail. Okay, ma'am. >> Yes. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> The doctor's bars. And you guys are free to go. If that's
your only case, you're free to go. Okay. All right. Which one next? >> Next is item number seven, New Branches LLC. >> And before we get to that, if we could, um, uh, item number 15, Safar Revocable Trust. Um, it's a request for a
foreclosure authorization. Um I think Mr. Mr. Bar uh was here. I think he might be out in the hallway. Um but we're we would like to continue that
matter until the May 20th, 2026 um hearing. Um there are uh issues with respect to um the notice that was raised by uh Mr. Bar and also
um Mr. Bar wants to proceed with a um lean reduction um a lean reduction request. Uh however, the property has not yet come into uh
compliance. So, we are planning to meet with respect to those issues um and would like it continued until the May 20th, 2026 uh meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Beard's here on behalf of his clients. >> Good morning, sir. I know who you are,
but so the record knows who you are. Can you say your name? >> Yes. Thomas J. Beard with the law firm Jones Foster. I'm here on behalf of the uh property owner Sarfar, Inc. And uh this property has a long and dubious
code enforcement task which uh I have been involved in since its inception. Um none of the staff members were involved the last time I was involved with it.
And I think that uh your honor would benefit and the town would benefit from a meeting that I would I expect to have with them. Okay. try and sort out some of these and narrow some of the issues. >> Okay. So, you're in agreement with uh continuing it to May 20th? >> I am.
>> Okay. >> Um are you Mr. Bear, do you stipulate to service for this morning's hearing or do you want the town to testify as it relates to service for today's hearing? >> Well, I think service is one of the issues because there are actually two
lots. the property was split into two, but um I will stipulate to the one lot that was served which is uh the addresses on the agenda that lot as I understand it
though is actually in compliance but that's part of the dialogue that needs to occur and I I don't want to uh I want to preserve my right there but um >> so the difficulty for me is we're going to get into the merits then if I have to take if I have to start looking at that
stuff. Uh so what what does the town want to do? >> Um if we are unable to work out the notice issue, we can renotice uh the matter and we'll have enough time to um to do that based on the meeting that'll
take place next week. So >> So you're just going to pull it from today's hearing then and you'll renotice for subsequent hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Bear, does that >> Yes. So that both both lots are covered by that notice. >> Okay. All right. So I'm hearing mutual agreement of the parties that uh there's
going to be some additional discussions. I'm going to not make any rulings today and the town is requesting that item 15 be pulled from the agenda and it'll be renoticed. >> Is that correct, Mr. Carts? >> That's correct. >> All right. >> Thank you. Clients be excused then? >> Yes, you may.
>> Thank you. Go ahead. Whenever you're ready. >> Um, next item number seven, New Branches LLC. Case number CE2666. Um, address is 1677D Road, PCN number 41414317013450040.
Violation sections FBC of the Florida Building Code 105.1. Building permits required. Code of Ordinance 22-135A business tax receipt ULDC 20-017
prohibited uses DC05-040A permits required expiration of permits and development orders. >> Good morning your honor. For the record, CO compliance officer John Suare is presenting KCE266 in reference to the property located at 1677 D Road. The
notice of hearing notice and notice of um violation was posted on the property March 13th, 2026. The NOV was mailed via certified mail on the same date, March 13, 2026. Also posted a town hall.
Um the BTR violation has been removed. So, I cited the property originally for the structures without a permit and uh prohibited use because it appeared some was living in one of the structures. Through conversation with the property manager, Dean Chalupa said there were 18
migrant workers living in the principal dwelling and one person living in the shed structure. According to the property owner's representative, who is a land use consultant, they believe the town should allow it because they have a certificate for the M migrant labor camp.
At this time, the town is requesting 30 days compliance for the prohibited use of the housing in the principal dwelling. Um, permit the structure shed that someone is
living in or remove it and also after application of the permit if the shed structure remains 90 days to issue the permit to let the representative speak at this time you're on I'd like to submit the
case folder for evidence All right. Who's present for this case? >> I am, your honor. Frank Warmind. I'm online. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. And what's your relation to the LLC?
>> I um their broker, land use consultant. I handle permitting for H2A farmworker houses across the country and I helped purchase the home and I worked with the city at that time and let them know we were using the house and we even filed a
um a zoning confirmation to replace the trailer that's in the back with another unit. um to find out what our options are to add additional H2A farmworker housing. So this issue when we were buying the
house actually was addressed with the city. Um you know back then they had outside consultants I guess working at all the various departments and those are the people we worked with back then.
Um I also submitted to Mr. as far as permit information obtained by uh or from Palm Beach County that shows the original permit for the house that was built in 1991. And the site plan at that time showed
the trailer that uh he believes did not have permits. And my belief is when you have a permit pulled and you show all the improvements that are on the property on the site plan that all those improvements are therefore deemed
permitted. Um I think that trailer was the original structure on the home before they even built the house to be honest with you. Uh it included a pole barn and some other structures that were on the property. Um so I think the
permit issue should be cleared as well. and we get our our permit for the housing for the farm workers actually through the state estate process. Um I try to send supporting documentation to the town manager's email but it came
back said the um mail address or the mailbox was full and it wouldn't accept my email and the files. Uh we made a request you know this is all in one week I'm getting on this job trying to uh you
know satisfy the concerns and explain you know the history here. We asked for a continuence for 90 days. Um and I you know I would like to work with the city on this. Uh your honor if you could grant the continuence then we would do
so. >> All right. What's the town's response to the continuence? I presume that he made a request and you tell me what the town's position is, Mr. >> We would object to um a continuence of 90 days. Um the prerequisite for all the
issues that Mr. Orman brings up is that the property um be um have an agricultural classification or have agricultural activity um going on with it. Um this property itself um and I
think uh Mr. Mr. Suarez and Mr. Orman can confirm does not have any agricultural activity associated with it. Um the people who reside there do um work on other agricultural properties
but they they do not there is no agricultural activity going on on this property. Is that correct Mr. Orman? It is correct, but it would not it would not be very hard for us to grow plants
on this property at all. And when we brought this up in the past because we had lots of land under agricultural production right down the street, it was not a concern with the um planning consultant at that time.
>> But we can we can definitely grow plants and get the egg designation. And that's like a very minor issue with the county. >> Well, it it's a starting point that is necessary uh for him to assert the
defenses that he wants to assert. Um right now this property has a single family classification on it. Um and therefore uh the residences are limited to um a single family residence. um
there's the potential for um an ADU um but that has to meet certain requirements um and uh the designation of um family comes into to being in this case it's our understanding that it is
something on the order of 18 people living on the in the property um and that would violate housing codes um as cited. So, um, we would, uh, object to a 90-day continuance on this
matter and are prepared to move forward. >> So, what's the town's response to his statement that the county permitted the structure >> as Go ahead. >> Hi. So, we don't disagree it was permitted, but it was permitted as a single family. And part of the problem
here is being converted to essentially mult multif family/boarding house. Uh we have the building official here to testify and that's that's some of the concern is when you switch that occupancy it requires not only building it requires fire additionally health. So
we've got a a septic system that's been designed for single family now has 18 or so folks on it. Uh we have ingress egress issues with regards to maybe potentially fire rescue and a whole slew of building uh permit issues. uh that
arise. So, so, so that's that's part of the problem with the permits. Yes, they were permanent for single family. We're not single. It's not a single family use. >> So, what what is actually the structure that's not permitted? The main structure or a trailer? Because I thought I heard Mr. Suarez talking about a trailer.
>> There is someone There is a there's also a mobile home/tra at the end of the driveway. >> Um you can see it at the end of the driveway there. And there's happens I have one occupant and that is without a permit. The structure itself and it
definitely and it does not have a certificate of occupancy. >> The trailer >> trailer. >> So the house has a permit. The house is not an issue. The main house >> it's the house is an issue because of the occupancy >> but not as it relates to the permit. I'm trying to understand what it does not have a permit. It's just the trailer the
one person living in whatever that is. >> Fant it clarify. My name is Josh. from the building official in Luxahhatchi. So um both of them would be considered with unpermitted. So um because of the
residence was converted to different type of occupancy which under Florida building code would be occupancy type R2 which includes dormatory and migrant homes. Converting that from R3 which is a single family residential to R2 would
require a building permit. >> Okay. and um then shed as well. >> I'll come back to you, Mr. Orman. Let him continue and I'll come back to you. >> If the if the shed is used as a as a residence, it also would require even
though if it's it was previously permitted or unpermitted, converting that to the living space or single family dwelling or any type of human occupancy would be a considered change of occupancy and would require permit. Florida Building Code
uh clearly states that uh um under 105 it says that uh permits are required when uh change of occupancy occurs on the building or the structure.
>> Okay. All right. Mr. Orman, go ahead. So, at first, Mr. Suarez had issue with the trailer in the back, thinking it wasn't permitted. And now they're adding that the house isn't permitted because
of the change of use. So, you know, now this is, you know, this is new information for us, a new stance by the city. I provided the permit information for the house that I obtained and on that had the site plan for it called out
the trailer in the back as a studio and that was on the permit for the house in 1991. So I think that studio was there. Yeah. I don't know when Palm Beach County started issuing permits, but I think
that was the original structure on the property. And when the home got a permit and that studio was on the site plan along with a poleb barn in the back, all the improvements are then deemed permitted through the process of
permitting the new structure in n the new home in 1991. They also got a permit for a detached metal barn. Um so I you know I respectfully disagree with the fact that the improvements are not
permitted. They are permitted and if the issue is the the land use issue, our use was permitted by the state and we can talk further. This is why I
asked for a continuence is to have a in-depth conversation with staff where this is I had since Wednesday of last week to talk to them and provide all the facts and >> well but your your client was served
with the notice document on March 13th, right? So just because you came in a week ago doesn't mean that they didn't have a month and a half to deal with this. So >> I I understand >> that's not the town's problem. >> I understand. And this whole issue when we were buying the house was brought to
the town at that time that we were doing this. So having one planning officer in the past say that it's okay as long as you get the state permit and satisfy the state code, which I tried to email to
the town, but the um town manager's website bounced the email back um as saying the mailbox is full. Uh, I also emailed it to John Suarez. So, he should have it on his email. Um, so that
you can see the documents that we've, you know, have to support, you know, that we permitted this. We asked we asked the town if we could add an additional farmworker housing unit because we already >> and you you have you're I don't mean to
interrupt you, but you're telling me that you've emailed the town something that shows that the town put in writing that that you could have that. >> Not specifically have it because we wanted to add an additional unit to replace the small trailer in the back
with another manufactured home that I designed that we use across the country. and you know, it houses farm workers. And he said, "Well, in order to get a a zoning, you know, review or zoning confirmation, there was a form we
submitted back then before we closed escrow asking to add an additional unit for more farmworker housing." And we got a formal response from the city. And that was all because we were talking to the planning um person at the time. This
is what we were going to do. We need farm workers for our our nursery down the street. And these are just temporary workers. They're here for three or six months in our busy season and they stay and then they go home. It's it's uh the
H2A farmworker program is a national program and we do this in Texas, we do it in Georgia, we do it in California, um you know, Colorado, you know, this is this is something that's common in our
industry for temporary workers. And a lot of times we just use single family homes. And the state health department comes in and they look at the federal guidelines and they calculate how many people can stay based on square footage
of bedroom space. And that's how they determine, you know, how many people can stay in the unit. And you know, we've every year since we bought the house, we've gotten state permits and they come and inspect it, you know, two, three
times a year to make sure health and safety issues are not a concern. Um, so we're following all the rules that we know. This is just, you know, I feel like we're, you know, just part of the process the city's going through, you know, looking
at lots of different properties and um, you know, but we've we've addressed this with the town before and it's, you know, disconcerning to have, you know, a change of um, employees now come in and, you know, say we can't do what we've
already talked about and had us allow allowed us to do as long as we got our permits from the state and that's what we've done. >> All right, let me ask Mr. Suarez, whatever he emailed you, is it in the case file? >> Um, he just emailed me about 5 to 10
minutes ago, I believe. Frank, u Mr. Frank, is that correct? You're talking about that those emails >> at the beginning of this beginning of this case, I sent it over. I I um did the chat and I asked um for the email that I could send supporting docs. I
asked that at 6:03 my time, 9:03 your time. Uh town manager. >> All right. So, you just emailed all this stuff this morning during the hearing. You didn't send anything prior to the hearing to the town. >> Some of this came to the town. The permit information went to Mr. Suarez.
all the the facts that I received from the county of Palm Beach County. So, he has that information. He also has the zoning confirmation information that we applied to the town before we bought the
house with the uh plans for another modular home for farm workers to have that reviewed by the town and the response the town uh planner gave who copied the town manager at the same time
with his response. Mr. Aurorus has that information. >> All right, let me allow the town to respond. >> Looking at those other uh documents right now, but just a couple points. Uh he's correct. He did send us some state informations from this the health
department. The crux of the matter is it has to be on lands classified as agricultural. So he is right. There are single family homes used for farm worker houses on lands classified as agriculture. And the reason you get a health certificate is if you think about it a single family and now you're
putting all these folks in there, there has to be some bare minimum health standards since statute excludes Florida building code on eggs as classified as agriculture. Therefore, the health department gets involved in a limited fashion to make sure it's safe for you know meets minimum health standards.
It's separated apart about it. I understand that the town the state doesn't usurp the town's authority to regulate whatever it wants. I'm I'm very comfortable with that. What I'm not comfortable with is his testimony that the town has told them that this was allowed in the past and that he sent the town documentation stating the same.
That is where I'm trying to understand. >> Sorry, your honor. I could print out the um he did attach uh it's and it's just the um >> I've seen there is there Mr. Fleshman did issue but I don't think it is
directly on point. >> It's a request form for zoning confirmation to print that out. >> Yeah, we've got I think I think we have copies of that. If you could hang on a second, let me go. >> Okay. It's a request to add an additional manufactured home for more
farmworker housing, but the unit that I designed is 3,000 square ft. And the town said the most you could do is 1,200 square ft for an an additional like ADU type structure,
which you know is fine. We just didn't want to remove the smaller studio structure trailer, you know, that is already out there with a marginally larger unit. So, we just kept it. It was there when
we bought the property. >> Yeah. So maybe part of my she said >> further your honor um the comments about you know health and safety you know of
our workers I mean we're permitted through the state department of health so they don't have a concern with the health and safety of our employees that live there. I I you know,
we've not had any issues with the house supporting, you know, the use. Um you know, like I said, they're only there three or six months, just in our busy season, then the house is vacant. Further, there's really no other options
for us that what I really wanted to do is have a conversation with the town of what land is zoned for this type of use. And you know, you have a community that's 98% zoned a res, you know, agricultural
and yet there should be provisions in the code for this type of housing. I'd be happy to work with the town to you know this is going to be an issue that's going to come up in the future. it's, you know, try to solve this solve
this um this issue. And further, the state actually just passed the law in March that goes into effect in July that, you know, supports farmworker housing, which the state deems to be an important
issue of concern for them to support the agricultural industries in the state. All right, Mr. Suarez, let me ask you a question. Your notice of violation, I don't see that it specifies what the unpermitted structure is. The gentleman on the computer has testified that your communication with him was strictly
about the trailer. Is that accurate or inaccurate? >> It's accurate as uh we spoke about we actually went through each individual structure on the property. So, it is accurate that I pointed out where the um the trailer someone was living in that
it does not have a certificate of occupancy. >> It's the only permitting issue that has come up. >> Go ahead, sir. >> No, I believe I believe that's incorrect. there's been correspondence um regarding this including all
structures and that's why I think the on the notice violation it said lack of permits for structures. I think what's being confused is yes there might be a permit for a single family however when you convert that to multif family or something different than what it is then
it lacks the permit for that. Um but to say that it just involved one structure is not accurate. Um, additionally, if you look at the aerials, you can see the the the structure that's located the most west on the property is um
essentially 5 ft from the property line. So, that typically is never allowed because there's never a rear foot setback on parcels here. So, that's didn't get a permit. Uh so there's there's just numerous of there's numerous and also additionally
when you when you apply for a permit for one structure on the house or anything on the house for a shared bond whatever it might be just the fact that you show other structures on the same permit when you grant a approval for one doesn't mean you've blanketly approved now all the others uh which has been alleged
that's just not the case. Uh and as far as governor signing a new order, yes, absolutely correct. That is uh and and they do protect agriculture as does the town. However, uh it's on lands classified as agriculture. >> Well, let's All right. So, let's let's
just make sure we're all on the same page here because it's I don't I want to make sure that he understands what whatever ruling I make applies here, but the corrective action for 105.1 says obtain a permit for all accessory structures on the property. That would not include the primary structure. Correct.
>> Correct. And I just want to make clear that we did go over every all these. He tried to send me the permits that he had in his an email, but it's not not that I told him that it's okay that okay, only this one thing needs a permit. We just happen to review what was on the
property. >> No, that's fine. But I want to make sure that when you sent out this notice of violation, what you were sending out the notice for unpermitted structures was just accessory structures. Is that correct? >> It was any structure without a permit. Your honor notice says that's not true.
>> Your notice says that the corrective action is obtain permits for all accessory structures on the property. >> Well, yes, the accessory structures. Sorry, that's what I meant. >> Okay. So, that's not all structures. I just want to make sure that he understands what what and I understand what is at issue here this morning. So, how many structures are there? I see
photographs that are taken from what looks like the roadway, but I don't know what of these are the accessory structures. Can you help me walk me through these photos? be accurate. What's on property appraiser? It's what's accurate under there now. >> The end of the driveway.
These are two sheds. >> Okay. So, this and over here, not this one. >> That's the main. >> Okay. So, this is a a little bit closer up of the same. >> Okay. >> And this is the where there's no CO, but somebody's living in.
>> Yes. Okay. And I could not get a picture to the rear of the whole. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right, >> your honor.
Um, can you hear me? >> Yeah. Hold on for me one one second. I have a couple more questions for the town and then I'll come back to you. >> Okay. So the the uh 20-017 of the town code says this is single family only based on the classification by the property
appraisers's office. Is that correct? So you're you're telling me that the prohibited use is the migrant camp on a single family house? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. And we do have a copy of um I believe the zoning confirmation
request form um and previous opinion that was issued on June 30th, 2021. If you want to take a look at that um >> yes, please. >> And once you've had a chance to take a look at it, comment on what it actually
says. >> Okay. So, Mr. Uh, Orman, he's handing me the documents that you emailed to the town this morning. The zoning confirmation request form and a memorandum that's was from a prior town manager
from June 30th, 2021, a property appraiser printout. And that's that's the end of it. So, let me take a look at these So to give you a little background, we were talking with Jim Flechman who's the planning department person at the
time and you know telling him that we were going to use the place for farmworker housing and we wanted to add additional units. So this what he said to get a formal response is do this zoning confirmation request and attach
the the the unit design that we had that we would put in the back of the property. And so this response is just to the request for adding an additional farmworker housing unit.
and he said you can do it but it you know basically limited to 1,200 square ft. So this was all on the radar back then when we were buying the house. All right, Mr. Curts, do you want to add?
>> Um, well, as I read the uh the request, it had to do, as Mr. Orman indicated, with an additional unit of 3,000 square feet, which they never moved forward on. In the opinion, um, Mr. Fleshman
indicates that um there are certain um structures that um could be allowed. I think he mentions a groom's quarter if it was an equestrian property. Um I think he mentions a
caretaker's property, if it was an agricultural property. Um uh and speak speaking to the issue of if it's a single family residence um it is limited to an ADU of
1,200 square ft. That zoning confirmation does not address um that I can see the issue of um the farm workers per se and how many farm workers can be there. farm workers
can live there within the confines of the single family definition that the town has um not expanding it to 18 unrelated people. So I understand that um Mr. Orund was
acting in good faith um with respect to that submitt um and Mr. Fleshman's opinion was if you if it was an ad classified property, it could have um certain additional structures. Um and if
it was a single family residence, it could have an ADU. Those are all correct. It doesn't address the uh the core situation um of whether or not you can use that single family residence as a dormatory.
That would have been a different an different question and a different answer. and um Mr. Thomas can address that and that's what we're talking about with respect to >> the use violation that exists on this property. Um if they want to resume the
use of the property as a single family residence, they are entitled to do so and they do not need a permit um to resume that use. um uh uh they don't need a building for single family if it's a they don't need
a building permit for that. >> Um but uh so the the correction and that's why the the correction on this is relatively simple and why we'd ask for um 30 days. um they just need to move
those farm workers out of it, have it resume its um intended use as a single family. Um and they can make applications for other additional uses um as time goes on. And if they want to grow um crops on
that and get in an agricultural classification um or have horses or whatever they want to do that brings that property to have an agricultural use, then there may be some uh additional housing that could be
applicable. We're not saying yes, but that's the situation. This property has been zoned um as uh single family use. it is not being used um as an agricultural property at this point in time.
>> And and additionally, I know the uh respondent claims he wanted to meet and work with us and absolutely we will. We're just stuck in a in a bit of a hard spot. We've got violations of the building code and housing. That's why the building officials here when it comes to life safety type issues. That's why we couldn't just sit back and that's
why we we've said the 30 days puts a town in a bit of a predicament. But as far as meeting and reaching out and absolutely, we're more than happy to do that. We're just in this position now. >> All right. And compliance on the permit issue. So if they applied today with
what's going on in the house, you wouldn't issue a permit for what's going on in the house. Correct. >> Or it would be a uh it would be a change of occupancy with you know, normally residence is not designed to house 18 18 people um unrelated.
So it would it would be I mean we we could definitely you know uh consider in reviewing that but most likely would would would require additional items possibly fire sprinklers. You know if you switch to R2 occupancy then the fire department gets
involved on as well because now you have uh type of dormatory occupancy there's no longer single family. So um so there will be have to be modifications done uh including uh adding additional square footage to to accommodate that many
workers. >> But but to just to add it wouldn't it wouldn't even get to building because zoning would do their review and if the review came to get a dormatory type structure approved zoning would say well it's not allowed in that district. >> That's my point because you're asking me to give them a compliance date on a
permit that I don't think based on what you've told me they're doing and what they've told me they're doing you can't issue. We had to take what they said is true that they want to get the A and so that's why we put all the options >> but the same remedy that Mr. Curts just indicated applies that people could be removed from the house and then the permit violations are complied once you
have proof of that. All right. Go ahead Mr. Orund. >> Again we have a permit from the state department of health. I've asked to have a continuence so that we can find out what would we
need to do to get the permits that the town's talking about so that we could use it for this farmworker housing so we can get a permit from the town. We just need to get through this season,
which if we can just get through the season, the house would be vacant. If this town would show that we've acted or understand that we've acted in good faith in the past, let us get through the season and we can address all this
stuff during this time. You know, we're happy to do that. You know, there's >> Pardon? >> I'm I'm sorry. Um, what is the end of your season? >> I think they're August, something like
that. We have these workers. They're on a contract, so we have to pay them. They're here to work and we have to pay them. Let us get through this contract season, you know, and then we'll address this as
we go through the contract season and try to figure out a remedy to to this. But laying a fine right now when we've acted in good faith as you've, you know, acknowledged, you know, it's doesn't seem fair. And we're happy to work.
>> This is just so you're clear, this is not a fine assessment hearing. This is a violation hearing. So, I'm not setting any fines today. I'm giving time to comply uh should I find you in violation. So, no fines start running today. Just so you're clear. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. >> Mr. Curts, do you have a response to
that request? Well, if I may add it, if you uh from the documents that the that was submitted through the email, uh the definitions by the Florida statute uh 381.008 the definition of terms uh it's uh it
classifies the the migrant housing and it specifically excludes the single family dwellings. So single family dwelling cannot serve as a as a migrant housing. >> That's wrong. says a single family residence occupied by a single family
doesn't qualify for a migrant housing permit. >> So there's >> the term does not include a single family residence that is occupied by single family. It specifically excludes the excludes the single >> to not be used as a migrant homes
>> because they because of the capacity and unrelation and and is >> that's for the state permit. the state isn't going to issue a permit if it's just a single family living in a single family home. That's what that says. So, it's I mean,
>> either way, I don't think I need to get into that level of detail. That that is going above and beyond what is before me. That's a conversation that you are going to have to have between Mr. Orman and the town. Um, but I don't think that that's germanine to what I have before me uh in terms of ruling. Mr. Curts, did
you have a response to his request for the August time frame? >> Um, I I think the uh the fact that uh he has a a contract out there um uh that's something that they should have um established on
agricultural lands. Um and the town's position would be that 30 days should be sufficient to um move uh those folks into alternative housing. All right. And Mr. Suarez, your original request was 30 days to apply for
permits. And what it was was it 90 days to have the permits obtained. >> That that doesn't go to the use violation itself. It's >> No, just the permit. Yes, I I got that. Thank you. All right, Mr. Orman. Now, we need to do the difficult part with
remote attendance. Was Mr. Orman provided with the case file in advance of the hearing today? Your honor, the permit issue. I supplied the permits, the structures. I haven't responded to the comments when
he came up to your bench pointing out the different structures on the property. He said that the trailer was not permitted. The poleb barn came up. All that stuff was pre-existing, probably grandfathered in when the house
was built. And it all was on the permit at the county. It was all on the site plan. And standard practice that I've worked in many jurisdictions is if you get a permit, everything that's on the site plan for that permit is deemed
permitted, you know, and so, you know, it's there before the house was even built. I don't know when the county, Palm Beach County started permitting structures, you know, it may have been there before
they even issu started issuing building permits. So these there are structures that are grandfathered in. And I would assume that, you know, old structures don't have to be torn down just because
the town doesn't see a permit on it, you know. No, but the testimony I have is that the use is not whatever use was happening back in 1991 is not the same use. And the building official has testified that the change in use requires an additional permit. >> That's the the permits on the house is a
new issue. It was the land use issue on the house. The permits the house has a permit. I know the land use issue is a different thing. And now they're trying to make the house a permit issue. And that's a they're
expanding what was of original concern, which is why I originally like I sent them an email asking them to in detail put down what's the issue. They just listed vague code references and I didn't know what they were even
pertaining to exactly and they didn't respond with the detailed like you know the trailer in the back, the pole barn, the house, you know, they wouldn't detail exactly what was the issue, which is why I wanted a continuence to find
out. And now we're at the hearing and they're changing what is the issue. So it's difficult for me to address something when it's fluid and the town is changing what's the problem. So you
know like I it's frustrating when it's a moving target here your honor. >> Well the the permit that I'm looking at in the case file that you provided only talks about a single family house. So, I
don't have any document that tells me that there's a permit for the poleb barn or a permit for the shed that somebody's living in as part of the migrant camp. There isn't any documentation in the case file that that corroborates that. >> There probably >> what you're saying is that when you get a site plan approval that that somehow vests everything, but that's not what
the permit documents that are before me say. So, >> permit that you see has a site plan. If you if you apply for the building permit with Palm Beach County or anyway in the state of Florida, you fill up the permit application and permit application states what are you proposing to build?
If you're proposing to build single family dwelling, that's what it says on the permit application. Just because you include shed and barn to it, that doesn't automatically grant approval. >> Okay. >> All right. So, um, Mr. Mr. Orman, the
town has given me an evidentiary case file that I need to enter into the record. Uh, you have seen the affidavit documents, the notice documents for today's hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have any objection? That's what's in the case file. The documents
that you emailed, I've put in the case file, which were the zoning confirmation letter. There's a signed certified mail that was signed for on March 17th and there's photographs of the posting and there are photographs of the structures on the property. There are
the permit documents that you just spoke about and there's a notice of violation and notice of hearing as well as the property appraiser documentation. Do you have an objection to this case file being entered into the record? No, without actually seeing all the
documents that are going in. I'm assuming all the documents are what I emailed in today. >> All right. In the final page, there's a cost recovery sheet. I presume the town is uh seeking its administrative cost for today's hearing. >> Yes, your honor.
Your honor, I'll the town said I needed to ask you for the continuence. I know their position. I would hope that you could see some justification for a continuence so that I can continue to work with the town.
>> Well, so my job here is to give you reasonable time to come into compliance, and the time I'm going to give you is going to give you time to do that, to meet with the town and and get on the same page with what you need to do to get into compliance. Um, again, as I indicated before, just because you were brought into the case relatively late,
uh, doesn't mean that your client, you know, a month and a half goes away from when they were first notified of of this hearing. So, uh, I'm not going to grant a continuence because I I agree with the town if there are really uh, this many people living in what has one septic tank on it. Uh, there are some potential
for some issues there. I I've heard your testimony that there aren't any issues and that people are there for a limited duration. But I'm going to give you reasonable time uh for both code sections, both issues to to come into compliance, but I'm not going to grant a continuence this morning uh because I don't think that the that what I've
heard justifies the need for a continuence. I think you can accomplish the same thing with the time that I'm going to give you um to come into compliance. >> Originally, Mr. Suarez, if we signed the stipulation, was going to give us 90 days. I'm not aware of a stipulation. So if I
I don't know anything about that. >> So they asked they sent over a stipulation for us to sign which basically admitted guilt when I have all these documents and I needed to come to you to present them to you to review. And if we would admitted guilt he would
have gave us 90 days to comply. Now they're shortening it to 30 days. So, can we get the 90 days still to comply so that you know that gets us closer to the end of our contract with our workers
and it is consistent with the stipulation that they sent over for us to sign. >> Does this town want to respond? um what we're willing to do from a stipulation standpoint may be different
when we have to prove the case and that you know the stipulation gives everyone some advantages and clarity and finality. We don't have to worry about appeals or we have less concern about those kind of things. Um uh so our position stands with respect to what's a
reasonable time um to bring the matter into compliance with respect to the use violation that is um 30 days we think is reasonable. >> Okay, >> your honor, that's punitive for us to force to sign.
>> I understand that, sir. I've I've heard all of this and I I I I'm hearing your what you're saying, but what you just told me is that you were not willing to enter into a stipulation. So, the risk of of not coming to a mutual agreement before the hearing is that you come to this hearing and I hear everything and
then I make a decision. Um, >> you take the power out of your own hands. So, >> uh, that's okay. But again, my job is not to be punitive. I'm not being punitive today. I'm not telling you you have to comply within 3 days, which would be completely unreasonable, right? I my job as I sit here as a magistrate for this hearing is to give you a
reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with the town's code and to continue the discussion that you're going to have with the town. So nothing that I have done so far and nothing that I'm going to do today is punitive. Uh this is not that stage of a hearing process. >> I just wanted you to have the full picture and all the information. >> I appreciate that. Right. I appreciate
that um additional information. Let me ask the town. I did not hear in your remedy uh fine amounts in the event of non-compliance. What are you requesting? $250 a day. >> All right. What's a hearing date after 90 days from
today? Just so I'm in agree. So that' be the August hearing. It's the second Tuesday. Is that correct? um 90 days from now would be um August uh 2nd, I think.
>> And the the hearing is the second Tuesday. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Any uh thing further you'd like me to hear, Mr. Orund? No, I think I adequately gave you all
the information that I have. >> All right. Thank you. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing. Yeah. >> All right. With that, in case C-26-66, I'm going to enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite
exhibit 1 without objection. I'm also entering what I've marked as uh respondents exhibit R1. which is also a composite exhibit which includes the zoning verification uh request and the memorandum for Mr.
Fleshman from 2021 and then the uh property appraiser information. I've marked that and I'm putting that in the case file. So I'll enter that um without objection from the town and I'll ask the town to keep that uh punch that into the file so that it stays in there.
Having entered all the evidence into the record, I'll make a finding that uh based on the affidavit of service in the case file as well as the signed certified mail that the town had legally sufficient service to proceed with today's hearing. Uh having heard from
all of the parties uh here this morning, I'm going to find that the respondent is in violation of sections 105.1 and ULDC05.040A 040A for the uh accessory structures on the property uh which may have been
permitted in the past but uh which have since changed use and occupancy and require uh new permits. I'm also finding respondent in violation of section 20-017 for the um migrant camp that has been permitted by
the state of Florida uh within a single family uh residence on the property and the accessory dwellings uh to that property uh in violation of the town's code. So, I'm going to require compliance for uh section 20-017 within
45 days of the order or a $250 per fine for the building permit violations. That's 105.1 of the Florida Building Code and 20-05, excuse me, 05-04A of the ULDC.
I'm going to require the respondent to comply within 90 days of the order uh that I signed, which will be dated today. Uh or again, in the event of non-compliance, a $250 a day fine will be assessed for each day that those violations continue. In the event of non-compliance, I'll reset this for a
fine assessment hearing on August 11th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. And because I found respondents in violation of the listed code sections, the town's entitled to its administrative costs uh in this case, that's in the amount of 40966 payable within 30 days. So, you'll get a
copy of that order uh after the hearing, Mr. Orman. Thank you. If >> we appeal, how does that affect? That's a question you'll need to talk to your attorney about. >> And the code reference for 90 days, was that for the um the use, not the
permits? >> No. 45 days for the use and 90 days for the permits. >> Okay. >> And the order will have the code sections in it when you get the order. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Next case, please.
>> Item number one, Henry Cardi. Case number 255030119. Address 2345E road. ECN number 4141431701441 00020. Violation section code of ordinances
18-24 tree mitigation code of ordinances 18-21 A1 general permit. John Suarez, co- compliance officer for the town of Lockachi Groves, presented case 255030119. Um, your honor, uh, the property owner
entered into a stipulation agreement. So, I'm going to testify to service. Um, notice of violation, notice of hearing was, uh, posted on the property April 7th, 2026. Uh, the same copy was certified was
mailed certified mail and posted here at town hall. I'd like to present the case folder with the stipulation agreement at this All right. So, the stipulation you've handed me has been signed by the respondent. Is the respondent present? No.
All right. All right. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing further. >> All right. In case 2530119, uh, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one without objection. I'll note for the record that the respondent is not
present at today's hearing. I'll find based on the uh notice documents in the case file which include both an affidavit of service as well as uh USPS delivery confirmation for the certified mail that the town had good service for today's hearing. Uh, I will have the record
reflect that the town has presented me with an agreed, excuse me, a settlement agreement in this case that has been signed by both the respondent and the town that's effective as of today's date, May
4th, 2026. So, I will uh having reviewed the signed settlement agreement, I will uh sign an order that acknowledges and accepts the uh settlement agreement and mandates that the parties comply with the terms set forth therein.
All right. And I'll ask if the town could email me a copy of this settlement agreement so I can attach it to my order when I issue the order later today. >> Yes, I will. >> Thank you. All right. Next case. Um, we'd like to do item number nine and
11 together as they're the companion cases. So item number nine, Dustin Erdle, Jamie M. Erdle, case number C26-49, addresses 13313, Brian Road, PCN number 414143,1701-6120030.
Violation sections FBC105.1 building permit required code of ordinance 22-135A business tax receipt BTR ULDC 20-010 G3E commercial vehicle/traers
DC20-010 G3 equipment screening outdoor storage 175-170 general inspections DC175-1 110 permits required. ULDC 20-010
G1 outdoor storage ULDC05-040 permits required expiration of permits and development orders. UL DC 20-017 prohibited uses code of ordinance 18-21A1-2/veation removal. UL DC175-240
violations. And then item number 11, case number CE2656. No address only the PCN number 4141437016130020. Violation sections FBC105.1 building permit required. ULDC 175-170
general inspections code of ordinance 30-4 nuisance accumulation of trash, junk, or debris. ULDC 20-010G1 outdoor storage. ULC05-040A permits required expiration of permits
and development orders. ULDC175-110 permits required DC 20-017 prohibited uses DC175-240 violations. For the record, co- compliance officer John Suarez presenting case 2649 in
reference to the property located at 13313 Brian Road. Also, it's companion case um 2656 at uh PCN4141431701 6130020. Uh the order for service, the order
resetting violation hearing was posted at 13313 Brian Road on April 16th, 2026. A copy of the NOV and NOH was mailed certified to the property owner on Palm Beach property appraiser. It was also posted here on town hall on the same
date. And that goes with uh the order resetting violation hearing with the companion case. >> What date was it? >> April 16th. >> Okay. Um, we have mutually agreed to um continue this case to May 20th as they just
retained counsel and they are aware I believe they might have a representative here too. >> Good morning, your honor. >> Thomas J. Ed with the law firm Jones Foster on behalf of Dustin Earl and
Jamie Earl and we do appreciate the town's offer to extend this hearing to May 20th. We hope to meet in the meantime and uh reach a stipulation which I understand there has been some discussion about but uh since I was
retained Friday afternoon, I have very little knowledge about the case. I'm going to go out and visit the property after we leave here and see what's going on. >> Okay. >> All right. So, in the event that you uh need an order for me setting that continuence so I can see the case file
as it relates to service and let's let's do them separately because they're going to have to have two orders because they're totally separate cases with totally different violation sections listed. Let's see. you. Um, no, do this one first and I'll make a ruling on this one and then I think you
need to get your testimony on service unless it's exactly the same. But let's deal with this case first. Number nine. >> I neglected to say, your honor, that I did email the documents for the order resending resetting the fine violation hearing to the property owner.
>> And I think you told me you mailed them certified, but there's also an affidavit of service. So, you also posted >> Yes. Okay. You posted the property in town hall. >> Yes. >> And it appears that you did that on the same date that you sent it certified on April 16th.
>> Yes. The email was on April 16th. >> Okay. And your certified mail didn't come back. It doesn't look >> No, it did not. All right. Show Mr. Barrett if you could uh just the notice documents for this case. This is for the first one, correct?
>> Any objection to the notice documents? Just the notice documents, Mr. Bar being uncharted. >> No objection. Just want to note on the email u which is not I guess it's just a confirmation of notice but um
my client received two cases one of which was not his. It was and I actually viewed them also. So we're not we're not contesting. I'm just saying that >> oh when the email was sent multiple things went
>> two documents. >> Okay. I I think uh Mr. Suarez intended to send 9 and 11, but one of them was not that. But >> these things happen. >> Yeah. And I won't obviously not be using email. That's courtesy of them, but the
the legally sufficient service in my mind is the affidavit of posting. So, um with no objection to that, anything further, Mr. Baron? >> No, thank you. >> Anything further from the town? >> Nothing further. >> All right. In this case, uh 20 CE-26-49. I'll enter the town's evidentiary case
file only as it relates to the uh notice documents for this morning's hearing. Uh based on the affidavit of posting in the case file and the testimony of Mr. Suarez, I will find that the town had legally sufficient service for this morning's hearing. With that service, uh I will grant the mutually agreed
continuence and reset this for violation hearing on May 20th at 9:00 a.m. All right, Mr. Suarez, the next one. And was your testimony identical in this second case? C26-56.
>> It is. There's an affidavit of posting showing that you posted the NOBOH to the property and the town hall on April 16th. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Did your certified mail come back?
>> It did not. >> All right. Could you show these notice documents to Mr. Baird? any objection, Mr. Bear, to those notice documents? >> No, here. Just >> any different objection? >> Same comments as last time. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything
further from the town? >> Nothing further. >> All right. In case C-26-56, I will enter the uh town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit 1. Uh I'll enter only the notice documents for this morning's hearing
based on those notice documents which include an affidavit of service. Uh, I'll find that the town had legally sufficient service to proceed with this morning's hearing and I will grant the mutually agreed continuence and I'll reset this u this matter for violation hearing on May 20th at 9:00 a.m.
>> Thank you, your honor. >> Thank you, sir. All right. Which case next? >> Um, we'd like to do items 2, three, and four together as well. Item number two, BK Holdings Partnership LLC. Case number CE-26-62.
Addresses 15960 Okachobee Boulevard, PCN number 41414317011090030. Viol violation sections FBC Florida building code 105.1 building permits required code of ordinances 22-135A business tax receipt ptrc175-170
general inspection 20-010G1 outdoor storage 05-040A permits required expiration of permits and development orders DC1 175-110 permits required DC 20-017 prohibited
uses ULC 90-070A sign violations DC175-240 violations case number C2661 addresses 1858A road PCN numbers 414143
1701800 010 violation sections code of ordinance 22-135A business tax receipt ATR um case number C26 626-70 addresses 1950A road PCN number
4141437011090020 violation sections FBC the Florida building code 105.1 building permits required 175170 general inspections DC 20-010 G1 outdoor storage DC 20-040A
permits required expiration of permits and development orders DC175 5-110 permits required ULC 20-017 prohibited uses ULDC175-240 violations. >> Okay.
Good morning. Deanna Thomas, code compliance officer for the town of Lockahhatche Groves. Uh I'm I'm presenting case number C2662. Uh address of violation 15960 Okobee Boulevard.
Um this property is um they do they do have um if I could pull it up Abby Gabby if we could pull it up on the prop on the property
appraiser website Please. Okay. So, they um this the property owner BK Holdings Partnership LLC is operating a business on this site. The property use
code is single family. Um, it's a retail nursery. Um, the big white roof that you see there, that was put up sometime in 2023, there is no permit for that. Um, so that's why there is a building
permit that is needed. Um, there is a business tax receipt that is needed to operate this business. um well the tax anyway to be collected for it. There's outdoor storage.
There's gravel, rocks, dirt um in the lower right corner there of the property where it can be seen. Uh clearing of the land for the 1751
the site development plan is needed. Prohibited use 20-017 is >> hold on before you go on. Clearing of the land is needed or they did clear. >> They did clear it. Sorry, they did clear it and an FDA was never obtained.
>> Okay. >> The prohibited use is any use not expressly or in in reference permitted in section entitled permitted uses is expressly prohibited even though the property is AR related. Um, this is
single family use and they're operating a retail business on this site. There's no ad classification of any sort. >> Okay. >> Um,
they have sign violations as well. And then um also that goes along with 1752 240 for the site development >> and Don while while they bring bring this up just in in a try to save some
time here. I I did speak with the respondents representative outside they claim and I'll let them put it in their own words that there'd be a minimal to signing the stipulation that we had put forth to them. However, they have a hard time getting the owner and they would need potentially another week in order
to get that signed. But I'll let them talk to you about that. I just don't want to go through the whole, you know, all three properties cuz they're all essentially the same without um, you know, at least bring that up in the forefront. But the agent is here sitting right behind us. Um, if you could attest to that if you wanted to, but just
wanted to bring to your attention. So, if that's in fact true, is the town amendable to continuing this to the next hearing or do you want to go through the merits of >> Well, we we would we would like to see if that if they still want to sign a stipulation now or or if they just I
don't know what their formal request is. They told me what their request is. I I said for them to bring it up here. >> You may hear from him really quickly if you don't have an objection and then then we can go forward if we need to. What is your name, sir? >> My name is Jim Fragner. I represent the property unit. >> Okay.
So go ahead there you have a stipulation and you're saying that >> I have an unsigned stipulation uh when I when we made the agreement when we discussed the agreement uh four weeks ago uh we were in agreement we would take a stipulated agreement and come to
the hearing and everything would go forward as it is we didn't get the agreement until last Wednesday so the hasn't had time to review it so I'd like to request a postponement until the May 20 or 21st hearing so we can
come back and address this correctly. >> So you're saying the owner has not reviewed the stipulated agreement yet? >> I'm sorry. >> You're saying the owner has not reviewed the document yet. Is that >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> What's the town's response?
>> Um yes, we can continue till then. Um however then you know just like the other cases when we do present you with a stipulation if we have to go argue all the merits of the case we're you know we're back to you know not giving the the 6 months as standard with all the
other applications. So it may take a different turn. So I I would just like for them to understand and also put on the record that between now and then uh hopefully that they do work with us and or the owner to sign the stipulation you know so we don't have to go through the whole exercise if it's not warranted.
Okay. Does that make sense, sir? >> What's the conclusion? >> Well, what he's saying is that he just wants you to be to be aware that they're not objecting to continuing it to the May 20th hearing. But if you don't sign the stipulation agreement, if your client doesn't sign the stipulated agreement, that at that hearing, we're
going to go through the whole exercise and whatever's in the stipulated agreement, which I'm not party to, I just acknowledge them and approve them. Um, you all come to an understanding if it if that's in fact what you do. But what he's telling you is that uh if if if you don't enter into a mutually agreed stipulation, if we go if if the
town has to come to the hearing and go through the whole merits of each case, that they may not recommend the same things to me in terms of compliance timelines is what he's saying. So that's fine. Uh he just wants you to be on notice of that. >> Well, I'll be coming back to the May 20th hearing >> with the stipulative agreement.
>> That's an option. That's your choice uh to enter in or your client's choice to enter into an agreement with the town. uh you will have to come back to a hearing if you do that because at these hearings typically had there been a signed agreement I would review the stipulated agreement and then I basically issue a one-page order that says I acknowledge and approve the
stipulated agreement and I mandate that the parties comply with the terms of that agreement. So you come back to that hearing but it's a it's a two-minute hearing. If you come back on May 20th and you haven't signed the agreement, both parties haven't signed the agreement, then the cases will be heard as standard violation hearings. Okay.
>> I'm satisfied with that. >> You're okay with that? All right. the town's okay with that? >> Yes. Good. >> All right. So then if that's the case, the only thing I need is uh service testimony for all three cases. >> Okay. >> So don't go anywhere, sir. We just have to do I have to do a procedural step in
making sure that they had legally sufficient service for each of the three cases. She's going to show you the documents for each case and then I'm going to make a ruling that continues them if that's in fact uh what what's happening. But go ahead with the additional uh service testimony. She'll bring them to you at the podium, sir. Oh.
>> Oh. Hi. Okay. So, this just states the affidavit of service that I posted it. Um, and I have a picture of the posting of the property which I had showed to the client. I posted it there for the 15960. Um, I did mail it regular
certified mail March 13, 2026. The green card um did not come back to us on this one, but we do have the picture of of posting and the the client that is operating the business along with Jim here. Um, they had come in and spoken to
us. Okay. >> So, they knew about all three of these cases combined. Um, do you want me to go through them individually because it's going to be the same? >> You you post it on the same day. Yeah. Just rattle it off. Read the case number and then rattle off what you did for service and then I'll make a ruling uh
three separate rulings. Before you get into that, >> I would like to record I'd like to know that uh the property has been established as a retail nursery in 198. >> Well, so no, no, no, no. If we're going to get into the merits, then we're going to do that today. So, if you're going to
start arguing, then we're going to hear the cases. >> Making us look like we're guilty for No, >> that that's not I'm not hearing anything having to do with the merits of the case. I'm just hearing notice so that I can I can sign orders legally and they're not they're not uh indefensible. So, I'm not hearing any of the merits because what I'm hearing from the two of
you is that you'd rather try to get into a stipulated agreement. >> Good job. >> If that's the case, then I don't want to get into any of the merits, just the service. >> Right. >> All right. Go ahead, Miss Thomas. >> Okay. So, then for case C26-61, uh, location 1858A Road. Um, same type
of service. Um, I have an affidavit of service showing uh March 13th posting with pictures. Mailed it regular and certified mail. The green card did come back signed for this one. Um, I can show you that if you'd like. >> I'm good. I'm done.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. >> You're still in mind? >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. And then we have case number C26-70. Address, property address is 1950A Road.
Affidavit of service dated uh for March 13, 2026. Postings um on site mailed regular certified mail. The certified mail did not come back to us. Pictures of the posting are in the case file.
All right. And Mr. What's your last name? >> Frogger. >> Spell it for me so I get it right. >> F R O G N E R. >> Frogmer. Okay. All right. So, you've heard her service testimony. You've seen the notice documents. You have any objection to just the notice documents being entered?
>> I have. >> All right. No objection to those to me seeing those. All right. Miss Thomas, if I can see those case files real quick. And I'm just going to look at the notice documents only. Thank you. It's pushed in there. All right.
All right. Anything further, Mr. Frogmar? No, nothing further. >> All right. Anything further from the town? >> No, ma'am. >> All right. In case C-26-62, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one uh without objection only the notice documents uh
in that case file. I'll find based on the affidavit of posting that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. With that good service, I will continue this matter and reset it for violation hearing on May 20th uh at 9:00
a.m. Similarly, in case CE-26-61, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit 1 without objection. Again, only the notice documents in the case file. I'll find based on the affidavit of posting and the signed certified mail in that uh case file that the town had good service
for this morning's hearing. With that, I will grant the mutually agreed continuence and reset this for violation hearing on May 20th, 2026. And again, in case CE26-70, I will enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit 1 without
objection. Again, only the notice documents in that case file. I'll find based on the affidavit of posting that the town had good service for this morning's hearing and I will grant the mutually agreed continuence and reset this for violation hearing on May 20th at 9:00 a.m. So, we'll see you
on May 20th. Okay, sir. >> Thank you. All right. Which one is next, please? Um, next is item number five. Hot thumper 14701 LLC. Case number CE-26-63.
Address is 14701 Okachobee Boulevard. PCN number 41414317 013120030 violation sections code of ordinance 22-135A business tax receipt DC 20-010
G3 equipment screening DC05-040A permits required expiration of permits and development orders FBC Florida building code 105.1 permit required DC 45-10 10 B duty to maintain property yield C20-010
G1 outdoor storage John Suarez for the town of Lockache Groves um I have a stipulated agreement your honor for this property I will uh stipulate the service I posted the notice of violation notice of hearing on
March 13th 2026 I it was also mailed A copy was also mailed certified mail and also posted here at town hall with the sign stipulation agreement.
>> Okay. Is the respondent present? That's Okay. >> You got assigned certified mail back as well. >> Correct. >> All right. Anything further? Nothing, further.
>> All right. In case C-26-63, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll find based on the notice documents uh for this morning's hearing, which include an affidavit of posting as well as a signed certified mail that the town had legally sufficient service for
today's hearing and can proceed. I'll also note uh that the town has provided me with a copy of a settlement agreement dated March, excuse me, May 4th, 2026 that has been signed by uh both the respondent and the town.
So, I will uh prepare and sign an order that acknowledges and accepts the uh settlement agreement. I'll ask you, Mr. Suarez, again, to email me a copy of this to attach to my order. >> Yes, ma'am. But I will sign that order uh and require that the parties comply with the
terms set forth in the settlement agreement. >> All right, next case. >> Item number 10, F Road Holdings LLC. Case number CE2655, address 1858, F Road, PCN number
4141-431701 61200050. Violation sections FBC105.1 building permit required code of ordinance 22-135A business tax receipt ULDC05-040A permits required expiration of permits
and development orders 92-0 recreational vehicles permit inspection and maintenance requirements. Your honor, for the record, go compliance officer John SWire presented case CE2655 in reference to the property located at 1858 F Road. The order
resetting violation hearing was posted on April 16th, 2026 at the property. A copy of the same was mailed certified mail and posted here at town hall on the same day, April 16th.
Um section 992010 has been complied. Also, section 22135A has been complied. There are two storage like pole barn um structures on this property without a
permit. The property use code here is a single family. They're on 2 and 12 acres. The town is requesting 30 days for to apply for the permit for the two uh pole barns and 90 days for issuance.
Additionally, is it recommended that the administration costs incurred in the amount of $4966 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Losi Groves? The full case folder is being submitted as evidence to support the recommendation. I do believe there is a representative here for the
property. >> All right. Who's here for this case? >> Morning, sir. >> Good morning. What's your name, sir? >> George Hugh. H U D E. >> You know, my spelling is terrible, so
you had to tell me. I appreciate that. >> All right. So, the town is telling me um that there's some pole barns on the property that need permits. >> Yeah. Wonder if he can point out which ones he's referring to. >> The two red roofs.
>> There's three of them. >> So, yes. I mean, >> I'm sorry. I just thought they were connected, but yes, the one on the one side of the property for this structure here, but
I saw they were in 2013. I did not see >> I just purchased this property. >> I understand. And uh I spoke the previous property owner was Dustin Erdle and he wasn't aware he wasn't aware of permits for those structures.
>> The property used a single family. >> One of them is the one that's on the bottom right is basically 12 stall barn and then the top two on the uh top right corner of basically just covered pull bar.
>> Mhm. They're what? They're p they're like pole bars. storage type stuff. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, that's more like a metal structure. This one's more like you said. >> All right. So, this case was on the April agenda and then it was continued
to today. Perfect. And the reason you're telling me that it's a single family is because there's no exemption based on agricultural classification. Is that what you're >> correct? It wouldn't it would require a permit >> that is not bonafideed egg.
>> Okay. And you reviewed the town's permit system and there's no permits on file for those structures. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question? How does the uh agriculture affect the field agriculture? Would it change?
This is what? Excuse my >> appreciate it. Thank you. And you said, sir, you just bought this property a >> little less than three years ago. >> Okay. And you bought them with the structure there. You didn't build those structures? >> No, ma'am. Those videos. >> Okay. >> And your how this came to our attention was it was originally part of that
previous violation that we that Mr. B was representing that we're going to be hearing on the 20th. All three of these parcels were tied together under one ownership and one operation. And then he bought the one parcel in the middle and kind of sucked it out. So that's why there's a little bit of carryover. Um
but you know when when going through this it looks like that you know potentially the structure on the south side might be able to get an air classification at some point if it is used exclusively for an agricultural use. Uh additionally the ones to the north maybe issues with potential setback issues. So I'm not sure if a
variance would be appropriate or not. With that all being said, I know our request was going to be 30 days to ask in which to apply for a permit and then up to we were going to say 90 days, but maybe up to 120 days to get a permit because there might be some more, you
know, complications with ad classification andor a setback issue to the ones. So there's no life safety issues it looks like. So that's why we've been a little bit more lenient than he is here at the hearing, you know, wanting to work things out. And I guess my concern does the town
have any objection strict compliance in these matters is issuance of the permit. So do you have any issue if I just give him a compliance date for issuance of the permit given that he may have to go through some paperwork process with the county to I don't want to put a date on him to apply if he can't even get a permit issued and that doesn't comply
him anyways. >> Yes. So we're fine with that as long as we have something on the on the record. Unfortunately, some folks, you know, played the the game of get get the permit and sit and do nothing and then just re reissued it and and then it goes on and on and on with nothing being happened. So, as long as there's a clear
understanding that yes, we can go by apply for the permit, but we need to make consistent steps in actually obtaining the permit and not just waiting for it to expire in 180 days and then opening it up again to have another 180 days go by. So, that that's what we try and law in the in the state law.
That's so he's I'm I I'm very aware of that issue. Um you can compel people to get the permits, but you can't you have a harder time compelling them to do the work. But >> um >> but the fact that is here and wanting to work through things, I think shows a lot
that you know he seems to be wanting to fix it >> to fix it. Okay. >> I do. >> All right. And 120 days is more than enough time for you to get through that process. What I'm going to do is not not specify a time that you have to apply for the permits because if you have to go through the process of changing the
the classification with the county. That may be a a process. It's a little bit of a process. It shouldn't take that long. But I don't want to give you a date that if you submit a building permit to the town that they won't issue you they won't even process a permit because you're not finished with the county yet. So I'm just going to give you a compliance date for issuance of the
permits. But what you should hear the town telling you is that they they don't want to see that you get these permits issued because technically that complies you out of code enforcement trouble and then never do the inspections and follow through on on closing out the permits. They want to make sure these are already built. So it should just be a matter of
get the permit issued, have it have whatever components need to be inspected inspected, and then they close out the permit. So, make sure you don't get into a scenario where you get the permits and you don't do anything else with it because they'll set you up for a different case and you'll be back uh for a similar issue.
>> All right, let me have uh Mr. Suarez, can you show him the case file? Yes. >> So basically just those three structures are the ones that are under question that I got to either get permits or an a reclassification. Is is that clear? Am I saying that right?
>> You I'll talk to >> Okay. I'll be educated later, apparently. >> Do you have any objection to those documents being entered? >> No way. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like me to hear, sir? >> No, that's it. >> All right. Anything else from the town? >> We're on another further.
>> What's 120 days? Was that the same date we used for the prior case? >> Yes. >> So, what was that? That was >> September 98 was the hearing date. >> Yes. September 1st was 120 days. September 8th was the next hearing.
>> Is September 1st a weekday? >> Yes. The Tuesday. >> And what fine amount if he doesn't obtain compliance are you seeking? Final amount is $250, your honor. >> And are you seeking administrative costs for today's hearing?
>> We are. >> And that's 40966. >> Correct. >> And Mitti, to answer your question, September 1st is a Tuesday with September 8th hearing being the following Tuesday. >> All right. And that a week gives you
guys enough time to review the file, make sure he's complied before the hearing. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> All right. So with that, in case C-26-55, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without
objection. I'll find based on the affidavit of service uh for with that represents sending the prior order resetting the violation hearing that the town had good service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the uh photographs in the case
file as well as the testimony of the town staff that the respondents in violation of sections 105.1 of the building Florida building code and ULDC05-040A for the uh structures three structures without the required uh building
permits. I require respondent to comply with those code sections on or before September 1st or appear at the September 8th fine assessment hearing. In the event of non-compliance, a fine of $250 per day uh may be assessed at that fine assessment hearing. So, make sure you get the permits uh issued and and get
out of code enforcement trouble, as they say, before that that September 1st date. Uh because they have found you in violation of the listed code sections, the town's entitled to its administrative costs for today's hearing, and that's in the amount of 40966 payable within 30 days.
So keep in touch with the uh code enforcement staff if uh there's any issues, but that should be more than enough time. >> Is the next hearing 98 or 91? >> 98. Your compliance date is 9 91. So you have to have the permits issued on or before September 1st. If you don't if you have them issued and you're in full
compliance, you've called the town and you have an affidavit of compliance. You don't have to come back to me on September 8th at that hearing. If you're not in compliance, you'll come back to a fine assessment hearing on September 8th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. and you'll get an order that has those dates uh in the mail as well.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next case, please. >> Next case is item number 16. Tony Group LLC. Case number 22070016.
Address is 2379 B Road. DCN number 4141 4317011380020 code sections code of ordinances 38-59 A-B pre-collection procedures generally order assessing fines dated February
23rd 2023 recorded copies with Palm Beach County Clerk of courts are in the case file lean amount $95,750 affidavit of compliance stated March 11 2024 reduction of lean application with paid application fees of $500 received by the town on March 27th, 2026.
Pictures from April 27th, 2026 showing property is still in compliance with this code section. Property or owner or their designate to present their lean reduction request. Uh Deanna Thomas, code compliance officer for the town of Locka Hatchee Groves. Um the respondents
um are here um to present their side for the lean reduction request. >> Go ahead to the podium. >> Do you have a copy of the case file? >> I do.
>> All right. Your names for the record. >> Ronaldo Da. >> Ronaldo. Spell your last name. D A Z A. >> All right. And your name, ma'am? >> Mariela. >> Mariela. >> Yes.
>> All right. Last name. >> Gorena. >> What is it? >> Gorena. >> Spell it. >> G O R E N A. >> Okay. Thank you. And are you guys the owners? >> Yes. >> Group. >> Group is uh is the name of the the the
owners of the property. I'm part of the the corporation. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, this is a fine reduction hearing. So, these uh the the burden is different. So, you guys have the burden of proving to me why the fine should be reduced. The town is telling
me the fine amount is 95,750. So, go ahead. >> Yes, your honor. Um first of all um when I was here for the original originally uh violation I have the features when when
uh they sent because I was surprised why I was getting violated. I don't know where should I present the picture to should I to you? Well, just explain to me first and then maybe I'll take a look. >> Palm leaves that were sitting outside of the property when we purchased the property and we saw the neighbors that
they were doing. So, it was thought it was normal like put your branches outside of the property and the the county will pick it up. >> Okay. >> Then when I came here, they explained me that I am not allowed to do that. That I have to cut it in specific sizes.
But since I don't have enough room of my property, I'm not allowed to do that. So from that day, I said, "Okay, I will never do that again." They asked me to put a sign, which I already put a sign because the entrance to that bridge that
goes to my property also is the bridge for another two properties. >> Oh, I think I remember this. >> I think I remember your Yeah. Okay. >> I was concerned like how I'm going to control the neighbors because how how do you know that it's just me? Okay. I have the boundary is perfect. I I accept my
my my problem. I cut that out immediately. I kill 100% and I pay my my fee and I thought it was over. This is probably like three years ago, two years ago. >> Okay. >> And then I by surprise when I asked for a loan >> two months ago,
>> like like two months ago, they said, "No, there's a lean in your property. Why?" And then I surprised with the amount of money, $95,000 for something that I already fixed long long long time ago. And since we received that, I came to the office and
then they sent me to with Diane. I I have a meeting with her trying to understand what happened. And then she explained a little bit what's what she she told me it's like they've been charging me every day 200 something because of this. I said, "We didn't know that. We didn't receive violator. We
didn't receive anything. Even I came in person here to the office to pay the the the $400 that I was supposed to pay for the first time. Like he came here with you. Mhm. >> He he was he was out of the town because I came to pay the the check and they
didn't even tell me anything about this and and for us was like a big surprise to see this when we thought we already fixed everything and like two years or three years ago when this happened and after after all this I I tried to
contact her send emails try to fix it to understand what what happened and she told me I can I what I can do is go to the red application. They have to pay $500 to do that. And then um and then at least they can do this 25% off. But
still a lot of money just for for something we already fix it like two years ago because we didn't after this we didn't do again. We didn't throw anything outside of the property. Nothing. >> Okay. We tried to try to go a little bit
more into detail and see if how how can you do you have proofs that inform? So they ended up that you the the county has a picture where they left >> a letter >> a a letter in front of a 10acre property like if you throw something right now
and you leave it outside of the fence it will fly away. There's no way. That's the that's what they say that the only way that we got ignored by by leaving a 10acre property a piece of paper. >> Well, that's not that's not entirely true. So, they mail you they mail you
documents via certified mail. So, >> but whether you got it and whether they sent it are not the same argument. So, that's the second way that they give you notice is they post it to your property. So, the first way is they send everything. And you've heard you've been sitting here the whole time. You've heard me find legally sufficient service for each case. That's step number one
for me. I cannot proceed if they have not legally notified the property owners of the problem. So the statute requires them to send those documents certified mail. And if they can't get assigned certified mail back, a signed green card back, they can post the property 10 days before a hearing. So that second picture that you're showing me of the posting on
the fence, I understand your argument that it's a huge site and you're not going to see that. But that's their second method of of affectuating service. So but that doesn't have any bearing on on what you're actually after here today. So what what um >> sorry >> when did you comply the property? Do you
have proof of that? >> I mean when was that the when we did the application? >> Let's do an easier question. >> I did in March in March. Now, in March, like two months ago, uh I came in person, I give it to the lady in the
office and I told her, "Please they can check everything is fine." And I offer to pay I don't know $3,000 at least like to to fix this and and done because even for I I know maybe they did the the the job, but it was a misunderstand everywhere. Like for me, for us, for
them, like we we made a mistake of course like two years ago because it's because we are new in the property. We didn't know we we're not allowed because we saw the neighbor that isn't cross off the street he's allowed because he has more space than us but in that point we didn't know after we know we fix it we
paid the 400 he came here I think with you and done >> they happened to fine because of the name >> other people were doing it yeah >> and we did the same week everything and after two years we received this because of the law >> so what do you think the fine should be
reduced to the lean >> the low as possible. >> I I I put it I I put it >> if you put in sorry but it's just for some leaves palm tree leaves that >> are fine. I mean I don't think that's
correct. >> I'm not building I'm not doing something incorrect. it just on leaves that we fix it that in that moment as soon as I came here again because we're doing the in the in the county and we we learned the
rules and that moment we fix it. >> All right. What's the town's response? Uh the issue is your honor um and I think did we give you a copy of the um lean reductions the current lean
reduction ordinance of the town? It's uh from chapter 14 art two. The council has put a limitation on the special magistrate's authority
to reduce uh the amount of the lean. You know no longer have plenary jurisdiction over that. Um the lean reduction that you are
uh left with is um it's in section 14.5 um B5A. It's uh begins on page two of six there. The special magistrate may make one of the following
determinations. um grant the application and reduce the lean to a specified amount which shall not be less than 25% of the lean amount provided however that the lean amount shall not be reduced to less than $5,000
under any circumstances. In this case, the town's position is that the amount of the lean is 90 >> $95,750. And so the extent of your authority on this
matter is um to reduce the the lean to um an amount uh just short of um $25,000. I think it's $24,000 and change. >> Well, I need to know that exact amount. So
>> 375, I believe. >> Oh, is it this post-it note? >> Yes. Um and the uh the applicants were advised of this limitation on your authority. Um the
town would not have an objection under these circumstances. Um that it be reduced to to that amount. The applicants, I believe, in their petition indicated that they um wanted the fine reduced to $3,000.
Um, I think the code enforcement officer had tried to contact them and explain to them that that that extensive of a lean was uh lean reduction was not within your authority. Um, and that the only
entity that can grant that relief to that extent is the town council. And it's not an that jurisdiction of the town council is not an appeal of your decision. It is a separate um petition
um and uh the town council has the ability to reduce it uh or completely eliminate um uh the lean. It's a it's a very high standard in that um they have imposed upon themselves a requirement that it be a unanimous decision of the
the council. Um, and the cost for entry into um to seeking that relief is 5,000 $5,000. The concern that I have about this
proceeding is that if you grant um the order at the 24,000 um some odd dollars, they're not going to um find that to be
acceptable or affordable and then they are barred from seeking further relief for a year. So one of my concern is concerns is that we have a situation in which even the grant of relief may not
be sufficient for them. Um and it might be in in their interest. the only their only measure of being able to get um the
amount of the lean reduced um beyond uh what your honor is able to do would be to supply us with evidence that there was compliance at an earlier date and
that the lean did not actually run for that long and that's somewhat of what I'm hearing today. Um but >> even allow that. >> Um I think the question of when compliance came into uh uh when
compliance came into being um is always a question. As your honor knows, the the typical order um requires them to have notified the code enforcement officer so that the
code enforcement officer can go ahead and and certify that compliance has been achieved. Um I I'm not sure um what the factual circumstances were as to how compliance was determined when
they gave notice and when they are alleging that there was um uh compliance. My my thought uh had been that if they're if if they have the ability and they're willing to um pay the $24,000,
then that's fine. That's a that's a significant amount of relief for them and we can move forward. If they don't have that ability, um then everybody is wasting their time here today.
um and we might want to explore alternatives. Um but I am I'm not sure what the circumstance is and uh I think much of this information was conveyed by the code enforcement officer to them last week.
Why is um P comes after we already came here and we uh we fix the problem here when we came like >> here and you should have everything record and like that I fix the problem.
I don't know why you continue not you sorry personally but why are we continue on this it doesn't make any sense. Imagine you paid for one time that you throw leaves outside your house. 24,000. You think that is
doesn't even it's logic. >> And we came already. We fix it here. It was >> I was here in Paris when this was in the middle. I present my case and they >> told me what to do and I did it. >> What was the amount of the fine per day? >> It was $250.
I listened back to the audio. Um >> and this the compliance date was something on the order of 400 days later, a little less than that. >> The um yeah, the complian the affidavit of compliance was issued by a previous
code officer for March 11th, 2024. >> And the and the hearing date was back in uh the compliance date was back in 2023 some >> correct. So, >> well, the orders assessing fine were
dated February 23rd, 2023. >> I honestly I think the other administration was probably not doing the the the port thing. I think I don't know. I don't the the obligation as your honor knows is it's on the
um it's on uh the uh violators um onus to to tell to tell to tell the code enforcement officers um that there was compliance. I'm not
>> arguing with you or your situation. Well, let's all let's all pause though because I don't actually think that matters. Right. So, if they had evidence to show me that they complied 2 days later, your ordinance only allows me to reduce it 25%. Right? So, the date of compliance is of
no bearing here nor the statutory criteria in chapter 162 in accordance with your ordinance. Right. I mean, >> well, you still have to take the statutory criteria into >> what if they have one code violation. It's bushes. I still can't reduce the lean any lower than $23,000. >> 20. Yeah.
>> So, you've totally taken away the statutory criteria. Um, but the question for you all is what do you want to do? What he's telling you is that their ordinance only allows me to reduce the fine to $23,937.50. That's all I can do as their magistrate
>> and and what we're lost because I don't know what to do. I don't have that money. >> Well, what he's saying is you have another option. You can petition to their to their town council and you can go to the town council and request reduction of the fine from the town council or commission. Excuse me.
>> Is there a way to eliminate the the the the the violation because there was >> the town the town council has the ability to totally remove the the fine but they they have discretion as to whether
>> I came here many times. I call many times and the guy who works in the in the front desk that he can he can correlate that and ask him for that or answer what should I do what should I do well I don't know we'll see I'm going to talk to the manager we'll see I'm going
to never answers until I come here and then you give me the the the solution I mean we we >> I know that I I believe Deanna tried to reach out to you last week >> I did reach out to her on Friday >> thank for your help because you are the only here in the office try to help me
and try to answer my questions and everything because it's been so hard is honestly it's been so hard try to try to understand how to work with this when we already came like two years ago ago and we're we are supposed to we we thought we already fix it we put this we put the
sign that we promise going to do it we never did again like we never put more garbage plants or whatever outside >> I understand all that and I >> money we don't have the money >> I understand that but what I'm telling you is I can only reduce it so much by their ordinance. So, do you want me to make a ruling and reduce it to
$23,937.50, which would prohibit you from going to the town council, or do you want to withdraw your request to me and try to get a greater reduction from the town council? >> I think it's better to go to the town council. >> It's your It's totally your decision,
but what what the town attorney is telling you is if I rule, then you can't go there. So, >> yeah. And you know um if you need a continuence I wouldn't object to a continuence for you to consider this and
have the option um well understood by you and a decision well understood by you. >> So what he's saying is he he also wouldn't object to me putting this on the next agenda. So you have 20 days basically to think about it and then you can come back to that hearing and tell
me whether you want to withdraw it or whether you want to proceed. >> Yeah. we could make a decision right now is very like complicated because I'm scared to pay the $5,000 and then they say no. Okay, I already spent $5,000 for that. like
>> yes to you and still paying like 66 or 70 something dollars like >> uhhuh >> no they >> I would offer them the opportunity to continue and then we can meet outside of your presence and discuss the options
with them so that they fully understand what their issue their potential >> will be the the reduction will be >> the the total amount that we have to pay for Those branches are 23,000. >> That's all I have. They've the town has passed an ordinance that only allows me
to reduce the lean so much. So, as far as I can reduce it, if I grant an order, >> I have to the >> It would be reduced from 95,000 to 23,937.50. That's all I have the authority under their ordinance. >> So, the new we were supposed to pay will
be like 60. >> No, 23. >> It would be 2397 930 on full. No, I don't think the town does payments. >> Does it? Okay. Uh, yeah, I think it's better if we
hold and talk and see what we can do. >> I think this branches one day. >> Yeah, it's a lot like >> All right. So, you want to continue this? You want me to put this on the May 20th agenda? >> Okay. >> No objection from the town.
>> All right. Thank you. and they requested this hearing, right? So, you don't have service documents, right? All right. >> All right. So, with that, in case 22070016, I will uh grant the respondents requests and I will reset this for lean deduction
hearing on May 20th at 9:00 a.m. So, come back on May 20th. Okay. Okay. >> Talk to the town, talk to whoever you need to talk to, but you'll be on the May 20th agenda. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. Good luck. Thank Is there any other items on the agenda? >> Is there anything else?
>> On the agenda. It's okay. >> All right. Where to now? >> Item number 8, Guy Hankla. Case number CE2652. Address 14523 Okobee Boulevard. PCN number 4141-431701
3120040 violation sections DC175-125 application for a permit or approval 175-110 permits required 45-010B duty to maintain property inoperable
derelict unregistered vehicles 20-0G1A 3 equipment screening ULDC 30-5 overgrowth 20-017 prohibited uses 45-010
property maintenance litter garbage debris trash DC 92-010 recreational vehicles permit inspection and maintenance requirements 50-015A1
visual detra detractions or eyes >> Deanna Thomas, code compliance officer, Tanalux Agie Groves. Um, we have entered this case was continued from the April 15th hearing because of um they wanted to uh a settlement agreement and I do
have that signed and in the folder. Um, and we have given them until uh to comply with all violations by November 2nd, 2026
uh or a fine in the amount of $250 per day per violation shall be imposed. Every day thereafter until such time that each and every one of the above sighted violations is corrected. The property owner has signed it and we have
incurred um administrative costs in4 $4966. A a respondent agrees to pay these costs within 30 days which is June 3rd 2026 of the date of this hearing. >> And what do you have in the way of
service for this morning? Uh, I do have uh an affidavit of service for April 17th, 2026. Um, that I posted the uh order resetting violation hearing. >> What date was that? >> Uh, April 17th.
>> Oh, thank you. >> Mhm. And uh posted the property and I was in contact with the property owner's son um and he agreed to the stipulated agreement. Did you send that certified mail as
well? >> Um, no. I sent it via email cuz his mother is currently out of county. Um, so he did send it back though. She he did get her signature and it is notorized. >> All right, let me see that then, please. Thank you. You're welcome.
AI approaching. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. So, you had them accept service of the February 20th no, but then it got to hearing and got reset. >> Yeah, it did get reset. Um, it um
and actually I did mail that out regular and certified mail. Very good because I was just wondering how you had service because interesting >> because I have the little stamp there from the post office showing on the >> Yeah, you may I think I mentioned at a prior hearing, but you should >> update your settlement agreement to wave
service for the hearing that I accept these settlements so that you don't have to get into that every time because >> eventually you know how paperwork goes. >> Um, >> agreed. But yeah, if you sent if you sent them certified mail and you have the affidavit of posting.
Oh yeah, here's the certified mail. Little white and green slip for the order resetting violation hearing. And a green card just didn't come back, so you posted. All right. Anything further in this one? >> No, ma'am. >> Is you're not here for this one, sir?
>> No, he's with us. >> Okay, perfect. >> I'll introduce him. >> All right. So with that, in case CE-26-52, I will enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit 1 and reviewing the notice documents for this morning's hearing. Based on the affidavit of
service, uh I'll find that the town had good service to proceed. The town has provided me with a copy of a settlement agreement dated April 4th, 2026 that has been signed by both the respondent
in the town. So, I will uh prepare and sign an order that acknowledges and accepts the uh signed settlement agreement and requires the parties to comply with the terms set forth therein. I'll ask you, Miss Thomas, to email me a copy of that settlement agreement. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So that I can attach that to the order.
>> Thank you. All right, where to now? Item number 12, PBP Investments LLC. Case number CE-26-45. Um, only the PCN. PCN number 4141 431701210000
violation sections FBC105.1 building permit required. ULDC 20-010 G1 outdoor storage. ULDC 175-360 park trailers 05-040A
permits required expiration of permits and development orders. ULC 20-017 prohibited uses code of ordinances 18-21A1-2/veation removal for the record. For the record, compliance officer John Suare is presenting presenting case
C2556, I'm sorry, 26 45. Uh, PCN 414143170121000. The notice of hearing no notice of violation was posted. I'm sorry, your honor. One minute.
I'm sorry. The order resetting violation hearing was posted on the property April 17, 2026. I also mailed it certified on the same day, April 17, 2026, and posted here at town hall. I've been in constant contact
with the property manager. Um, the violations that do exist is this is a property use vacant. So, there are some structures on there without a permit, including a park trailer that appears someone is living
in. And there are some shipping containers on site that you can't see on property appraiser. And there is also an entrance close to F road that they require a rightaway permit. It's just uh you cannot use that access from
Okachchobee. So, close to um the intersection there. So, because it's vacant land and there's no rightway permit, they cannot use that access. It requires a permit. Um, there is outdoor storage of material
including food trucks and it's a prohibited use because you cannot store you can have have park trailers on there or anything on there without a permit. Um to be fair and consistent with our Okachobee corridor, the town is
requesting, like I said, they've been in constant contact. The property manager who is the ley for this property is out of town, but is aware of the violations and is looking towards compliance. Town is requesting 120 days for compliance.
That is obtaining a permit for whatever is on site. But if a permit permit cannot be obtained, removal of the shipping containers and whatever else is on there, the park trailer, storage of trucks,
if uh upon non-compliance after 120 days, looking for $250 fine daily fee. Additionally, is recommended that administration costs incurred in the amount of $4966 be assessed in order to be paid to the
town of Blockaji Groves. And I'm willing to submit the case folder for evidence. Also, your honor, your time attorney has been in touch with the registered agent on Sunbiz. A registered agent, I believe, is the Vorian.
He is aware of the notice of violation. What's a park trailer? >> A park trailer for the definition in the code is um essentially almost like a manufactured home where it would need tie down.
And that is the uh red structure that should be in the pictures. The red structure is what you're talking about. >> Yes, ma'am. And I could pull up the definition if you so want. >> No, it's okay. I just want to understand. Obviously, it's not the same as a recreational vehicle, but I wanted
to understand what it is. All right. The outdoor storage is clear. The >> Yeah, read go ahead and read me that definition of park trailer. >> Okay. One second, your honor. I'm pulling it up. But what's what's the problem with the
park trailer? Does it needs a permit? >> It would since it's a vacant property. Anything any item like that would require a permit whether it's someone's living in it, someone's not living in it. Essentially, it's larger than 6x 6x6. So, of course, uh something like that would require a permit to account
for setback issues and whatnot, but on a on a vacant property, it might have to be removed, but on any property will require a permit. 175-360 says permanent placement. Park trailers that do not meet the
limitations set forth in 175 355 for temporary placement shall meet the requirements of division 19 for man manufactured homes. So what is that? Does this meet those limitations or not?
It does your honor. Let me pull that up. Regarding park trailers placed temporarily in flood hazard area shall be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days or be fully licensed and ready for highway use. Which means the park trailer is on wheels or jacking
system is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices and has no permanent attach attachments such as additions room stairs, decks and porches. >> Was this on wheels?
>> No, it is not. Okay. So, is 175360 really at issue then or is it just the permit sections? >> Really, it's the permit sections, your honor. Um, because it just, you know, it's easy. Just requires a permit, >> right? It looks like a structure to me.
So, do do you need the violation on 175 360? >> Not necessarily because it require permit at the end of the day. So 105.1 should be sufficient. >> Yeah. I guess I'm trying to figure out what we're getting at is whether it's not supposed to be there permanently or if it just requires a permit, but that also doesn't make sense. How would you
permit something that's temporary? Is it a temporary permit or is it a building permit? >> It would require 105.1. So we can we can strike that 175. >> I don't remember doing a park trailer. That seems like a little bit of a unique
code. It is. >> All right. And the use on this property is what? >> Vacants. >> So any use on the property is prohibited then. >> Correct. >> All right. And then 1821 A1 and two. Explain that one to me.
>> I'm going to strike that. Um, also I like to remove those codes. The 18 codes. >> Okay. So 175 360 is coming off and then the tree removal vegetation removal is coming off. >> Correct. >> Okay.
All right. And 120 days gets us to those September dates again. So that's okay. And you have administrative costs in here that you're after seeking recovery for? >> Yes, ma'am. $4966.
>> Okay. And just for the record, the respondent is not present. >> No, he's out of town. >> All right. Anything further from the town in this case? >> Nothing further. >> All right. In case C-26-45, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without
objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include an affidavit of posting for the prior order uh that the town had legally sufficient service. I would uh recommend that the town update its affidavit of service for those um when you're sending
orders. It doesn't say that. So you may want to put a slash there and put previous order. Um they're getting noticed. So you have legally sufficient service but you may want to just update your form. Uh but regardless I'll find that the town had legally sufficient service for this morning's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the
case file and the testimony of the code enforcement officer that the respondents in violation of sections 105.1 of the Florida building codec 20-010G1 ac05-040A and uldc20-017
and I'll require respondant to comply with those code sections on or before September 1st. Uh, in the event of non-compliance, a $250 a day fine will be assessed for each day that the violations continue. And in the event of non-compliance, I'll reset this for fine assessment hearing
on September 8th, 2026. And because I found the respondent in violation of the listed code sections, I'll award the town its administrative costs in the amount of 40966 payable within 30 days. >> Thank you, >> thank you.
Next one. >> Item number 14, Jose Villa Verino and Ramon A. Villino Jr. Case number CE25-56, address 2241A Road, PCN number 414043 2400
01030. Violation sections order finding violation dated February 2nd, 2026. for permit applications. Respondents were ordered to comply with code of ordinance sections 18-21A1-2/veitation removal and 18-24A tree mitigation. UDC
code sections 175-110 permits required 175-170 general inspections 175-240 violations 175-125 application for permit or approval 05-040 permits required expiration of permits
and development orders and FBC Florida building code 105.1 building permits required by submitting the required permit applications no later than March 2nd 2026 for permit issuance/ /mitigation respondents were ordered to comply with the code of ordinance
sections 18-21A1-2 tree vegetation/ removal and 18-24A tree mitigation DC sections 175-110 permits required 175-170 general inspections 175-240 violations 175-125
application for a permit or approval 05-040 permits required expiration of permits and development orders and FBC Florida building code 105.1 building permits required. By having the required permits issued and corresponding mitigation completed no later than April 2nd, 2026,
a fine in the amount of $250 will be assessed for each day that violations continue to exist past April 2nd, 2026, the compliance deadline of the orders. John Suarez, code compliance officer for the town of Lockachi Groves, presenting case CE2556
in reference to the property located at 2241 A Road E. The order finding violation was posted on the property February 11th, 2026. A copy was also mailed certified same date and posted in
town hall, same date, February 11, 2026. Uh the magistrate found for the town. The respondent was required to apply for all necessary permits honor before March 2nd, 2026 or be subject to the $250 a day fine. Um, additionally, all permits are
required to be issued on or before April 2nd, 2026. So, there a pole barn permit was applied for in the order time frame, but has not been issued. It remains pending and under review. The town is requesting that daily fines
be imposed beginning March 2nd, 2026 for failure to apply for the required vegetation removal permit and the flood plane development permit. As of May 4th, 2026, this violations have accured 64 days of non-compliance
totaling $16,000. The town is further requesting that daily fines be imposed beginning April 2nd, 2026 for failure to obtain the Poleborn permit, which remains pending review at this time. As of May 4th, 2026, this
violation has acrewed 33 days of non-compliance totaling 8,250. Total fines of May 4th are $24,250. The town is requesting a full imposition of fines and um case folders being submitted for evidence support the
recommendation. It remains in violation at this time. I just went to the property April 28th and the same thing is going on. Um there's a hay transfer business on one side. Uh the change of topography is
still there where FDA is needed. The pole barn remains on site and remains in the for violation at this time. >> All right. Is the respondent present? >> They are not. >> Did you hear anything from them? >> I have not.
>> Okay. It has been months, quite a few months before since we discussed the case with the respondent. I want to say around December was probably my last contact. >> You said one permit had been applied for. What permit was that? was the for the pole barn. It's pending under review.
>> What What's the status there? >> Um it's under review. Um we sent back notes, but um their contractor has not gotten back to us yet. >> When did you send >> the corrections? That should be in the case file. I might
have printed it out. Um If I remember correctly, the review was made um practically when they applied for the permit. I could check online, your honor. So, it looks like you sent back comments. There's a letter dated
February 9th, 2026. >> Who's Caitlyn Forbes? >> That is a permit reviewer or something. >> It's a reviewer. Independent contractor for the town. I did check with Sandra with our bu our building department and um
says the status is still that and it still says online which is live pending under review permit 2026 25B. When does it show that they applied for the permit? Do you see that on your end? >> I have the dates specified. Let me hand
in my uh what I wrote. Yeah, it just says was applied for in the ordered time frame. But this this blue paper, does this say when it was applied for? >> No. >> And it had to be before the February 9th letter. I guess I guess the question on
the letter is so you you won't give them a building permit for the pole barn until they have an FDA permit. Well, in the review that Kaitlin sent, provide copy of FDA plan and permit. Um, I cannot testify in exactly what
else she needs. But I mean, that could be why >> my point is that that's tying one permit to all the rest of the stuff. So, in the future, I'm not going to I'm not going to do faster timelines on those. If you're going to hold them up for everything else, then it should all be the same date cuz you're also tying in
the vegetation removal permit, which is a totally separate code section. >> Yeah. In a way, those permits are tied together. >> Though that's not that that that concerns me because you're asking me to give people shorter timelines, but then you're giving them comments that they have to have all the permits issued.
Um, and now you're asking me to start a fine running when they actually can't get the permit by that date. So, This has been an ongoing issue. >> I know. I I know. And the and the vegetation removal, I mean, there's no reason they haven't submitted for those things. So, I'm not I'm not saying that that submitting one application is
sufficient. There was a lot going on on this property. Um, and there's no vegetation removal permit application that's been made. I did not see a vegetation removal or a uh flip lane development permit applied for.
And again, this property it's uh zone vacant All right. So, step one on the prior order was submit all the required permit applications by by March 2nd and then complete compliance was have all the permits issued
and the mitigation completed by April 2nd. All right. That person was here, weren't they at the last? No. All right. All right. Anything further from the town?
>> Nothing further. So on your dates of non-compliance you did from March 3rd to today. My dates were >> Yes, my dates were Let me verify. >> Can because I
>> maybe just ask Can you ask your Google how many days between March 3rd and today and May 4th? >> How many days are between March 3rd and May 4th? >> 62 days. And how many days are between
April 3rd and May 4th? >> How many days are between April 3rd and May 4th? >> 31 days. >> All right. And did they pay your administrative costs for the February hearing? They have not, your honor. >> Okay. And do you have administrative
costs for today's hearing? >> Yes, we do. >> How big are they? >> $49.66. >> Second. >> All right. Anything further? >> Nothing further. >> All right. All right, with that in case CE-25-56 for the record, the respondent is not
present. Respondents are not present. I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include an affidavit of posting for the um
previous order that had today's hearing date that the town had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of the town staff as well as the documents in the case file that the respondents remain in violation um of my prior order. They did not have
the required permit applications uh made by March 2nd, 2026 for sections 1821A12, 1824A, 175 110, 1751 170, 175125, 175240, and
05040. um for that violation that's been going on for a total of 62 days. I'll assess a fine of 15,500 and continuing to acrew at 250
until the um until compliance is achieved. And then for the second part of the order, which required uh the respondent to obtain all required permits and complete the corresponding mitigation no longer no
later than April 2nd, 2026, that those uh violations also remain outstanding for again chap sections 1821 A12, 1824A, 17510, 175 170, 1751 125, 175 240, and 05040.
And for that non-compliance, I will assess a fine in the amount of $7,750 and continuing to acrew at $250 per day until compliance is achieved. I'll reaffirm the town's administrative cost
for the February 2nd hearing in the amount of 23405. and I'll assess the town's administrative costs for today's hearing in the amount of 40966 payable within 30 days. >> Is that it? >> That's it. So with that, I'll adjourn at
11:54.