ruary 18th. Verizon says it's 9:00 a.m. so we can get started. Uh my name is AMD Barnard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing. Uh just a procedural matter because it appears that somebody is appearing remotely. Can you hear me, sir? >> Yes, I can. >> Okay, very good. I just wanted to make
sure that was happening. I'll figure out who you are in a few moments, but I wanted to make sure that that was all working correctly. Uh so first thing I'm going to do uh is swear anybody in who's here to testify on any items on today's agenda, including town staff. Is the gentleman that I can see now that's on the screen, is he the only one that's
appearing remotely? >> Yes. >> Okay, very good. So anybody who is sitting in the room physically, including town staff, and it looks like we lost the code officer. So if we could get him back for the swearing in. We'll go ahead and swear everybody in at the
same time. >> All right. With that, if everybody who's going to testify could stand if you're able and raise your right hands. I'll swear everybody in. Right hand, please. Do you also affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. You may be seated. a little bit about process uh for the hearings
that are on the agenda. I think they're both violation hearings. Uh so the process will be the same. The town will go first. They will proceed with their uh verbal testimony. They will show me their evidentiary case file that they wish to enter into the record. They will call any witnesses that they intend to call. Once the town is finished with its
presentation, the respondent will then have an opportunity to come either to the podium here in the room uh or speak to me virtually and cross-examine any witnesses that the town has called. will show me any evidence that they wish to enter into the record and present their side of the case. Uh once I've heard from both
sides, I will make a final ruling and you'll get a copy of an order that reflects that ruling after the hearing today. So keep in mind, uh all testimony is given under oath this morning. And for the record, I did sign the minutes uh for the January 21st, January 29th,
and February 2nd, 2026 hearings. Uh and I'll give those back to the clerk uh at the conclusion of today's hearing. But with that, I'll turn it to the town to call his first case. Thank you. The first case is Triplequat LLC. Address 15317 Collecting Canal Road. Case number
2510000001. PCN number 414143170202004. ULDC code uh sections 175-110 permits required 175-170 general and 175-240 violations. I believe this is going to be a request
for a continuence, but the uh applicant's attorney is online and I will turn it over to to him. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Um Jeff Kurts, town attorney. Um we have agreed to a continuence in this matter.
the um applicant has been diligently working with our uh flood plane administrator um and we think we have a re a solution to um all the issues. Uh they are attempting to file a permit um
application for the the flood development um application the site plan uh but they um were unsuccessful in doing that remotely. I don't know if you've been able to to do it this morning. Um, but
we are uh have a joint request for continuence until your is it March 2nd meeting? >> Yes, it is. That's the next meeting. >> By then, we think we'll have everything resolved. >> And what what is there in the way of
service? Before I hear from you, sir, I'll I'll turn to you in just one second. What is in there in the way of service for this morning's hearing? Or is there stipulation to service? >> I think Mr. Herring will stipulate to service. That is correct. >> All right, sir. Uh, what's your name for the record? Your appearance? >> Yes. Uh, thank you, uh, madam special
master. My name is John Herren. H E R I N. Uh, I am council record for Triple K LLC, the property owner respondent in this particular matter. >> Okay. So, I've heard you say that you are willing to stipulate to service for this morning's hearing. You're in
agreement with what Mr. Curt said with regard to the mutually agreed continuence to reset this for March 2nd. Is that accurate, sir? Yes, that is accurate. And just for the record, uh um Mr. Curts and staff, I was able to upload the application about uh 20 minutes ago. So, it is in the system and
I I forwarded to staff a screenshot of the uh uh acceptance um notification that it has been submitted to the uh to the town. So, we're we are good to go. I believe uh madame special magistrate and we would request that you grant the
request to continuence. >> All right. Thank you, sir. And just for my uh just for my accuracy, this is a violation hearing, right? There's been no prior orders on this other than continuences. Is that accurate? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything further, Mr. Heron? >> No. No, thank you.
>> All right. Anything further, Mr. Curts? >> No. No, thank you. >> All right. With that, in case 251001, uh I will let the record reflect that Mr. Heron uh represents the respondent Triple Quattz LLC and that he has stipulated to service for this morning's hearing. So with that stipulation uh and
having that stipulation of service, I will grant the mutually agreed continuence, I'll reset this matter for uh violation hearing on March 2nd, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you, John.
>> All right, next case. >> Next case. Javar and Rosa Garcia, address 1470A Road, case number CE25-64. PCN number 41414317011060020. ULDC code sections 175-110. Permits
required. 175125. Application for a permit or approval 175-170 general inspections 175-240 violations 175-145 Other permits required 175245 authority 175-250
unlawful continuence 175-310 limitations on placement of fill code of ordinance sections 18-21 permitted exempt and prohibited activities 18-24 tree mitigation Um your honor, the
the agenda uh shows Javier and Rosa Garcia. There are additional respondents in this case. Um those additional respondents
are Immaculate Ways, Inc. and Santana Equestrian Private Financial, Inc. Um you may recall that uh this matter was originally scheduled for January 21st. At the conclusion of those proceedings,
you granted a continuence um until this date um with respect to the violation hearing. Uh the respondents Immaculate Ways and Santana
Equestrian Private Financial were res were represented at that hearing and are represented at this hearing by Mr. Fields. Mr. Fields had stipulated to service with respect to the January 21st
proceeding. Um uh and he was present for the order uh granting the the continuence. Um there was service on Mr. and Mrs. Garcia for the January 21st hearing. Your honor
found that they were not present. Um they are not able to be here today, but they have not requested a continuence. Um the charges there were number of 175
violations and there were also uh violations of code sections 18-21 and 18-24 concerning loss of trees on the property. Um Mr. Garcia informed us that the loss of
trees were the result of the tornado activity associated with Milton. Um and we believe that Mr. Garcia is accurate with respect to to those contentions. So
um we are not proceeding with any alleged violations of 18-21 and 18-24. Um this will we will be proceeding with the 175 violations.
Um there was at the previous hearing a stipulation with respect to um a lease agreement between the GarcA and Immaculate Ways and Santana Equestrian Private Financial.
I'm sorry. Santana Equestrian Private Financial um is the lei um and that lease was uh stipulated into evidence. Um and
you will hear again uh that there have been um vast quantities of manure posted placed on this property um that it is piled up um or was piled upwards to 15
to 20 feet. Uh you will hear that there continues to be massive amounts on uh of manure on the property um but that the respondents have been uh reducing that amount and they are making efforts to uh
remove the material and that they have been they have been doing that. Um we believe there are violations of 175. I think you will hear from the respondents that they believe that
uh there is a state essentially preeemption on the issue. Um and they are relying on uh 1633162. Um you will hear that this property
does not have an agricultural um classification from the property appraiser and therefore we don't think any arguments with respect to 163162 are applicable. I'm just resetting the
the table for you so you understand where you were. Um uh and we're prepared to move forward at this time with the the 175 violations. >> Let's see. Do we have another one? You
can share. All right. So, uh, just procedurally then, if the town is prepared to continue, then go ahead with, uh, the remainder of your testimony and we'll get into it here. >> Good morning. I'm uh officer Deanna Thomas
uh co- compliance officer for the town of Lockahhati Groves and I have been sworn um have the um yes property location up there you >> got
let's start off with the location That's So on the screen is the property appraiser uh picture showing the aerial um for 1470A uh road with the property owners being
Javier and Rosa Garcia. This is case number C25-64. The notice of violation and notice of hearing is dated 12:30 2025 um for the location of violation at
1470A road. The sections cited are as follows. The uldc sections 175110 permits required.
Section 1751 125 application for a permit or approval. 175 170 general inspections. Section 175 240 violations.
Section 175 145 Other permits required. Section 175 245 authority. Section 175250, unlawful continuence. Section 175310,
limitations on placement of Phil. Um, this notice was served uh to the property owners via regular and certified mail. Uh, and that was on bear with me here.
>> That was on December 30th, 2025. I do have pictures of the postings in the case file. Um, they were given until December 16th, I mean January 16th. my apologies,
January 16th, 2026 to comply. Um, at that time, we went, if it wasn't in compliance, we would go to the January 2021st hearing where a motion was made by Mr. Fields to continue this
case. So, here we are today. Copy of the order granting continuence and resetting violation hearing is in the case file. These orders were mailed to um Rosa and
Javier Garcia on January 23rd. I do have pictures of the posting as well and it was mailed certified in regular mail. Um >> what date did you post? >> The date that I posted was January 23rd.
Now, um I did go out, uh well, I didn't go out, but John went out yesterday to the property. Um, and we have current pictures showing what the property looks like as of yesterday, February 17th at 11:03 a.m.
>> If you could go through the pictures of the prop, the condition of the property when you originally cited it, we appreciate it. >> Absolutely. >> And do we have copies of those pictures up available for the screen? >> They are on the Yes. on the thumb drive.
Before we get too far, is that a picture from Don if you could? Yes. >> Have you shown Mr. Fields those pictures? >> I believe he saw them last time, but I can show you the case file again, sir, if you'd like. I'd love to see it, but I
guess I'm gonna have to I can't do it. Well, depending my client, I guess I'm g have to look on the screen as you go through it. >> Now, do you have the Do you have the pictures from today that are on the screen? Do you have those available for him to look at? >> I do, sir.
>> Yes. >> So, before just so the record is very clear, is this the case file that where is the case file that you're intending me to look for me to look at? Everything that is in that case file that you have is everything that I copied from my original case file here.
You have the exact same file as I am have right here. I made a a copy for you. >> Okay. But are the photographs that are being shown on the screen in this case file? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, Mr. Fields can look at the physical copy of the case file. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But just for the record, I I was
not provided that you've got a copy. I don't have a copy. I'm looking up at the screen. I can't look at both in within my client. So, whatever I'm reserving reserving whatever objections I've got to that. So, we'll we'll get there. But just so
everyone's aware, in code enforcement, there's no requirement that documents be provided in advance. You'll get an opportunity. I haven't looked at the case file either. So, I'm I don't do that until they present it to me and then I actually have them show it to you before I even take a look at it. So, we'll get all the way to there uh in just a minute. So, um, go ahead and
continue with with I guess my question for the town is are you going to move into the merits of the case or are you going to enter your your case file at this time? >> I think we'll enter the case file at this time. >> Okay. So, can I ask the town to show the case file to Mr. Fields as we normally do? Um,
>> absolutely. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. city of bra and get the mass close to as close call get your going in there. >> So take as much time sir as you need to look through that. I know there's quite
a bit in there. Uh so take as much time as you need uh at the end of your review of that. I'm going to ask you if you have any objection to just the documents themselves and then obviously as you know we'll get into the merits of the case but take as much time as you need given the volume of the case file. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh yes there's a copy of the flip plane
in there. I do have a copy. Um, >> ask that to not speak while he's reviewing. Let's give him an opportunity to to review the file so that he doesn't have to listen to two things at one time. Open this up and flip this over. He doesn't see something.
question. I just need a next >> you you can go ahead. >> The the coloring the the legend for this one seen this one legend for this one. Is there a legend?
the legend on H2. This looks different than I've seen for the blow up of this one. That's what I was asking because I I haven't seen that. I've seen this one blown up. Not this one. I don't know where this one came from.
and it shows that there's a when this one's blown up. Doesn't look like that. We do the when we do the the the um blow up at this one, but for the property, some is dry and some has a
zoning classification or the the um fluid classification. >> I I'll just I'll subject to it, Jeff. No, just just a top one. I got face, too. All right. So, we'll put this back together. Good. Okay.
These pictures from this morning 21 217 All right, Mr. Fields. Uh, just so the record is clear, I know who you are. I recall you from the prior hearing, but state your name and who you represent for the record.
>> My name is Preston J. Fields, Senior. I am Preston J. Fields, PA, and I represent the tenants/respondents Paulo Santana Immaculate Ways Incorporated and Santana Equestrian Private Financial Incorporated.
>> And you do not represent Javier and Rosa Garcia. Is that accurate? >> That is accurate. >> Do they know that you're here at today's hearing? Uh, >> I've not spoken to them. I don't know if they know I'm here today or not for them. I mean, today or not? I have spoken to my client. My clients indicated that Mr. Garcia is in the
hospital. So, I don't know anything more than that. >> Okay. All right. Uh, any objection to the evidentiary case file that the town handed you and that you reviewed to that being entered into the record? >> Yes. >> All right. What's the nature of your objection?
>> The on the right side of the doc of the case file, there is a uh two pages which are of a large size. They were folded over. The first page if you take it off and look at it um it is
a an aerial map which has been altered through the highlighting. >> These pages correct sir >> that is correct. >> Okay. >> So in on that document I was looking for a legend and if you look on the second page of that document.
Thank you. the second page of the document, you will see what appears to be to me a different map, but it it could be related to the same photograph, but it has different depictions on that map. On page two, there is a legend. And
I was trying to correspond the legend on page two because I' I've blown up page two to look at particular property so you can see it better because this one's a little difficult. um it doesn't match the highlighting
that's on the first page. So, I'm trying to discern where the highlighting on the first page, what that legend is, and it doesn't have a legend. I can't tell the legend. Um the the highlighting it there's um
again I >> can somebody I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can you Where am I on the on this map? How far down am I? >> It's like halfway halfway on a road. >> Just point me in the right Okay. >> Do we
>> do we have to pull that up? So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Blow up on the screen that Mr. was describing. >> So, If I can just ask this question, maybe the clarification
is maybe they can clarify it, your honor. But if you look at the first page, right on the first page, there's a block which appears to represent the subject property that appears to be a highlighted color. There's a of a teal green. Underneath that highlight is a a
different green that appears to be um maybe the zoning or the flood elevation where it has like the fingers and then more for the pond is this picture. The first page is the highlight just of the
property the first green. >> Okay. So, aside from uh the the blowup shot, any other objection to any of the other documents in the file? >> No. >> Okay. >> For the record, John Suarez for the
Tonlock Sache Groves. Um the the shaded highlight is because we highlighted the parcel. Okay. So then the other green, the different shade of green that appears to correspond with what's
on page two or AE zone AE. Is that your understanding? >> That is my understanding. Yes. >> All right. So part of this is zoned AE, part of it not zoned AE or not zoned but >> X. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So I'm going to Mr. Fields,
I'm going to admit them over your objection. I understand what you're saying. Um, but as I look at both both documents together, I think what Mr. Suarez is saying is is accurate. It looks like because they on the top of this blowup page, it looks like they've drilled down to the property address
here in the corner. So, as there is a very strict correlation between the dark green here and what's shown on this smaller map. So, I I don't in terms of accuracy, it appears to represent the same thing. Why the underlying parcel box is shaded, I I don't know. But either way, um I typically admit
everything. Uh so I'm going to let it in over your objection as part of the case file, but I'll I'll note your objection uh to based on the lack of a legend. >> Not going to hurt my feelings, judge. I know. >> All right. >> No, I know how this go. >> All right. So with that, just so the record is clear, we'll get into the to
the good stuff here, but just so I keep uh process-wise, I'm going to admit the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one over Mr. Fields's objection to the >> technically I think we should be up to three because I think you took she took
some evidence the first time >> it was the >> let me get the prior order. >> We may have we may be on number three or four or unless you just want to start over with number one for today. >> Question please.
Um, at the hearing on January 21st, 2026, the only notice documents for the hearing were entered into the record as composite exhibit number one without objection. >> Yeah, that was my recollection of the prior hearing, too. I admitted only the uh notice documents because you
represent the tenants and not the owner. I needed a finding of service as it relates to the property owners at that prior hearing. So, my recollection is I only admitted and and what I wrote in the order is that I only admitted the notice documents as composite exhibit one. those notice documents remain the same uh in this case file. So I'm going
to I'm going to keep the exhibit number as composite exhibit one. It's just going to be the entire case file now. So I'll have my record uh excuse me, my order reflect that composite exhibit one includes the notice documents entered from the prior January 21st hearing as well as all of the other documentation
which is now included in the case file and that you've reviewed at today's hearing. So I'll admit that uh again this composite exhibit one over objection to the FEMA map the blowup page. All right. So while we're dealing with
documents, Mr. Fields, do you have any documents that you intend to enter this morning? >> I do. >> All right. So let's go ahead. >> This is for the town. Please set. This is for your owner. There's a table of contents in there.
Some of these may be deficitive you already have with the challenge file. I just prepared it just to be on the safe side. If you want me to read them into the record, I can. Or what would you like for me to do? >> Give me a few minutes to >> go ahead.
>> I was going to say if you give me a few minutes to >> That's what I was just gonna gonna indicate. You don't need to read uh the the table of contents into the record. I'm going to give Mr. Curts uh whatever time he needs to review it before I take a look at it. I'm going to ask him for the same objection or any objection just like I did for you. But I'll give him a
few minutes to review that. Okay. Um I don't have any objection uh but I reserve with respect to the relevance of um
exhibits 14 15 16 and 17. >> All rights. So, with that, I'm going to admit um respondents composite exhibit. I'm going to label that uh R1. And I'm going to on the front of this uh
cover sheet, Mr. Fields, I'm going to mark this as R1. And I'm going to ask the town to include uh this binder in its case file and maintain these together um through through the remainder of uh this case. So, I'll admit that without objection by Mr. first as again
composite exhibit R1. All right. So now that the documents are in um let me ask the town for any additional testimony or witnesses it intends to call uh with regard to today's case. if you could move forward and describe
your >> for initial examination of the property. >> Um, I'd like to start with the pictures um that are up on the screen. They should be I can't see it from here up. >> Can we click on them
visually? >> Can you do that, John? >> Y. So this picture I'll tell you this picture is from Mr. Courts. This is the the property owner to the east allowed us on his property
and he has a uh pond or a lake large body of water. He has told us to change color in recent months since the manure and that is just a picture of the rear property. this objection to the group say but
>> so Mr. Fields you I I think you've been doing this for quite a while you know that the formal rules of evidence don't apply to code enforcement but I understand your objection I hear it >> disposing it >> yes thank you and Mr. Suarez, just so I'm clear, can you tell me the dates? It's very difficult to see up there. I just want to make sure I'm following along. What What dates are those
photographs? >> These are from December 19th, 2025. >> Thank you. >> Let's go to the next. So, this is from the property line again from Mr. Court's property. Um, and you can see the mound upwards
about 15 to 20 ft. Same thing, property line, mounds. Let's go back to that picture. You could see the heavy machinery right there to show the height. Go ahead. So, another picture of the pond.
Pond again from the property line is it is extensive. So, I took many pictures. It's across the whole property line. That's um they have a shared easement. So at 1470 there is a easement that
leads to the rear property Mr. Quartz to the east. And so these are pictures from that easement that overlooks more pile from the easement. Again this is uh from the easement. You can see the heavy machinery sifting
machine. More piles. There are some storage containers. or shed storage on the property. This is a drainage area that is in 1470A Road that is
that is um it's right next to the easement, but it connects it connects to the pond at Mr. Cord's property to the east. it it's a shared culvert underneath and they um share drainage, right?
Took a few pictures of the drainage area, substantial body of water. That's um that's the uh easement right there that leads 1470. And I'm taking it from Mr. Court's property. It's just easement leads straight back to the pig land. But
that's a um truck that was either dropping off manure or leaving it there, dumping it. So looking west from the property line, there's a court lot. Again, more piles.
Go ahead. Duplicate. This is the culvert. This is from the pond. And the other side would be the um the drainage area to 1478 road. So that is showing um that culvert lies on Mr. Garcia's
property on 1470. >> That does on one side is Mr. Garcia's property. On the other side is Mr. Court's property. >> All right. And that particular that picture is that showing the lake or is that showing the drainage easement on the >> That is showing Mr. Court's lake.
>> Okay. >> Go ahead. It's a picture of the water again. Might have some duplicates here on her. Let's keep on going.
Took many pictures. Mid-property line. I walked. So, just to let you know, I walked we walked an entire property line from 1470 to the rear lot and there was manure along the entire property line. Keep on going. going
duplicate. That is um the flood plane the flood zone map without the uh shaded area. Um get off of that. So, let's go to the pictures for the ones I took yesterday,
>> which would be dated. >> They would be dated >> February 17th, 2026. >> So, this is the front of the property as seen from the public right away on a road. They took a substantial amount of manure out, but there remains a good
amount. Keep going. So, I walked the property yesterday since we have permission. And this is still taking a picture of the machinery. Looks like they're bagging up whatever muck they have in storage containers.
Come on. Um, it seems they are taking some out. There's substantial amount less, but there's still a lot of venor and muck left. Keep going. And I took a few pictures. How high are
those piles? >> So, you could see here it's a little bit higher than that truck. So, it's still I would say 15 ft more or less. But that's why I took this picture so you can see the heights of the mountains. And it's like this at good
portion of the property. So, you could see it almost since they're taking it out, it's almost developed a cavern type on both sides. There's mounds till to a roundabout. So, but even on the floor there still
remains muck ground. Go ahead. It's a lot of storage containers, but you see even it's hard to get off the floor unless you do a good cleaning. Go ahead. The front of the property once more.
See the mounds. Go ahead. Go ahead. Good. So, I basically took a lot of pictures so you can see how much there is left. And I took a few videos as well. I don't know if you want to play those
videos, Jeeoff. >> Might as well >> start with the videos. >> Well, let's before those before those play. Are those >> videos are not in the case file? Correct. >> They are not. They're just in the hard drive that we
have, the flash drive. >> So, is the town intending that to enter them into the record? >> Uh, yes, we would. >> Yes, your honor. >> The When did you take the videos? >> I took the videos yesterday when I was
taking the pictures. >> What did the videos demonstrate? See, >> the videos demonstrate the amount of manure left as I walked the property. I've walked the entire property yesterday and the video show that
we have a copy of it on the flash drive. >> We would offer them into evidence. >> How many videos is it? >> Believe there's seven total, your honor. >> How long what's the total time on? >> More or less a minute and a half.
>> In total? >> In total. I try to take them in 30 second increments. give or take. >> We'd like to introduce them to evidence after they if you could play them. Yeah. >> All right, Mr. Fields. >> I'm just going to object on the timing
and the provision not seeing them before. I understand that you may still admit them for weight purposes, but disposing that objection. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. And I'll ask the town in the future. That's a fair
objection. So in the future, anything you're intending to enter into the record, please have a copy that Mr. Fields can review prior to me viewing it. That's the difficulty with uh what you're asking me to do today because I'm going to witness it before he has a chance to review it. So in the future, please have videos. Um videos are a little bit difficult, but
if you're intending to enter them, please account for that going forward. Um because of the nature of the hearing and because this is not as formal as as uh real court, I'm going to go ahead and admit them over Mr. fields objection. Uh so go ahead and play each one and I'll have those uh so noted I'll ask the town
to um put a thumb drive in the file. We'll we'll uh I'll label that as composite exhibit 2 uh for the town's exhibits. >> Would it be possible for me to get a copy of those also? Yes. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Well, at the beginning of the video, I I
stare down at the uh drainage ditch, and this is how close the manure is to the drainage ditch on 1478 road. So, this is me walking from the easement drainage area. It's the front of the property, and then I look left east towards most where most of the mounds remain and the
equipment. this seem this appears to be a pathway. Go ahead to the next. So this is the back corner, eastern most corner where I'm surrounded by the mounds and there's a clearing in the middle. Apparently that's where the trucks come in and out and clear it. So
I'm walking on the muck itself. >> When you say muck, are you referring to uh manure and shavings? >> I am referring to manure and shavings. Again, this is more of a clearing. It's a substantial amount that I'm
walking on that remains on the ground. I want to say between 6 to 8 in. >> And then how high are those piles? >> Those piles are between about 10 to 15 ft that I could estimate.
just referencing um I'm walking towards the easement once more. There's the front of the property where again they removed a lot but there's still substantial amount that's looking towards a road from near
the easement just a generality of the property. again. There's a video from a road, the public right ofway, and I just swept from left to right looking eastbound. Before the manure, it was green grass. And this is just because of the photo,
the machinery, whatever doing with the manure in the muck. For the record, I did speak with Mr. Garcia on site. He was the sole person there. I informed him there was a hearing today and he said he couldn't because he had
diialysis. He couldn't attend. >> He did not request a continuence though, did he? >> No, he did not. >> Is that all the videos? >> That's everything, your honor. >> Yeah.
The uh Mr. uh what you're referring to is Mr. Courtz's um lake and that's on the property immediately to the east of this property. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Um and you're referring it to as Mr.
Courts. Uh is Mr. Courts the owner or is it in an LLC? >> I'm not sure about the LLC, but Mr. Courts is the owner. As far as >> So, it's your understanding that Mr. Courts um has an interest in that property? It is my understanding. Yes.
>> Um, and is the manure piled within 200 ft of that lake? >> Absolutely, it is piled within 200 ft. >> Yeah. Um, were there manure piles within 200 feet of uh the A-Rod canal?
>> Yes. um through correspondence with the Department of Health that did you come to learn that uh there were portable water wells within 500 ft of where the the manure was being slid opposed an
objection lack of predicate on the actual location of this well. >> So let me ask you to get the microphone a little bit closer to you so that the recording picks you up. >> Objection is going to be a lack of predicate to the establishment of the location of any potable water well unless he's going to establish that
today. We've not heard of the location. >> All right, Mr. Curts, I I'll allow you to continue over objection. Um, >> go ahead. >> Okay. >> If if we may go back to the property appraiser. >> Do you answer the question first if you
would, please? >> It is my understanding. Yes. And Miss Thomas, do you have additional testimony? >> Uh, yes, I do actually. Um I have walked the property as well. Um I can we can we
zoom in on that picture? Will it go any bigger? Okay. So there is a house on the property. Now near the house there is a well. There is
a well head. And being that I have walked the property, um, I can show you, I mean, there are a bunch of trees there, but I can show you the general area where it is located.
Is there any place on that property that is not that there is um manure stored more than 500 ft away from any point on that property wherever you were?
>> No, it's it's within the 500 ft. >> If you're on that property, you're within 500 ft of >> Yes, >> that's it. Let me let me stop the town there and ask just a couple of questions because I'm not understanding the relevance of these uh of the proximity to water bodies. The notice of violation says
that this is failure to have FDA permits. Right. So some I need someone to connect the dots for me on why the water bodies and the wells are relevant because I don't see that language. >> Technically I think this is an article 175 violation. >> Yes, it is. >> Right. So I mean again I haven't objected to it because a lot of this is irrelevant. I'm letting it go in. This
is a 175 argument. Go ahead. I apologize. >> Go ahead, Mr. Curts. >> Um, I'm just ask I am uh we're setting the the record straight as to the location of the piles visav
um the the wellheads and the um open bodies of water. Um it is in anticipation of an argument that um Mr. Fields has made and appears to be
presenting that the 175 may not be uh applicable um because of uh 1633162. um and their application for
registration. Um and so it it goes to that issue and um it is a bit premature with respect to the pure 175 violations, but it's an anticipation of a defense. >> That that's fine. I just wanted to make sure I understood as I continue to hear testimony why I'm hearing that
testimony. Yeah. >> So go ahead, Mr. Carts. You can proceed. >> Okay. Um, take a quick look at the file. Have the piles of manure um altered the topography of the
property? >> Yes, they have. Um, has there been an application uh to the town with respect to allowing this facility or a site plan um
being submitted for FDA review? >> No, >> I don't have any other questions at this point. Other than the code officers, does the town have any additional witnesses to call in this case? >> No. >> Okay. Mr. Fields, you have an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses that the town has called. So, >> thank you. >> Please proceed. >> All right. So, I apologize. I know it's probably a little bit more uh lenient, but I've got two of them who have kind of testified. Do one at a time or what should they >> What's your preference? I'm fine either way.
>> I'm okay with if you're okay with it as long as I've got as long as she can pick up who's testifying. Okay. Ma'am, would you introduce yourself? >> Sure. Deanna Thomas. >> And are you one of the code enforcement officers for the town of Laceachi Groves? >> Yes.
>> And are you one of the code enforcement officers who've investigated the allegations that we're here on today? >> Yes. >> And sir, what is your name? >> For the record, John Suarez for the Ton Luxer girls enforcement. >> And Mr. Suarez, are you a code enforce
excuse me a code enforcement officer for the town of Lock Sachi Groves? >> I am. >> And have you performed inspections on the property that is subject to this uh hearing today? >> I have. >> Okay. Right. Miss Thomas, um how long
have you been a code enforcement officer >> for the town or for my career? >> Good question. Let's start with the town. >> Okay. Since May of 2025. >> Okay. And prior to that, >> uh 15 years. >> Where? >> Uh Lantana. I started my career in
Lantana, Florida. >> And did you finish in Lantana before coming here? >> No. >> Where else were you a code enforcement officer? >> Uh Palm Springs. Florida. >> Where else? >> Green Acres. >> Where else?
>> North Palm Beach. >> Where else? and then here. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> What are your duties? >> To promote the health, safety, and welfare of the town and site for the code of ordinances as appropriate.
>> So for your citations, um the town of the Lockahhatchee Groves approximately how big is it, acres or miles? Do you know? uh in uh not off the top of my head. No.
>> In your performance as a code enforcement officer, have you reviewed say for example the Google Earth map of Locks Hatchet Grips? >> Yes. >> Have you studied it to determine whether
or not there appears to be properties such as what my client is doing in the town of Lockah? I'm sorry. Repeat that. >> Certainly. So, when you were looking at the Google Earth map,
did you look at it with the eye of a code enforcement officer in order to try to determine if you saw any potential violations depicted on the aerials? >> Objection. Relevance.
Continue, Mr. Fields, but ask a more pointed question. I'm not You kind of changed your question there midstream. So, what what are you intending to elicit? Make sure you're direct with regard to the question you're asking her. Are you asking her whether she looked at an
aerial to site your property? Is that >> No, I'm asking her if she's looked at the aerial aerial for other potential violations within the town. >> Okay. Continue. But I'll support Mr. Curts's objection to the relevance. Whether other people have been cited
doesn't have any bearing on your case. Just >> it it the argument I mean again I can't disclose it the full argument but you I hope you'll see it very shortly. >> Okay. Go ahead. But just be sensitive to uh let's get where we need to ultimately end up here in terms of all the all the
evidence on the table. >> I understand. Ma'am, have you looked at the the map to determine whether or not other people are in a similar situation to my client's use of the property? >> No. Not Google Maps. >> Have you looked at any other maps to see
whether or not other properties are that are similarly situated to my clients use of the property? >> The property appraiser website. >> Okay. And based upon the property appraisers website, have you vi have you cited other land owners in Lockahhatche
Groves for failing failing to get an article 175 application? >> I have. >> And how many of those have you cited? objection relevance. >> I'll allow you >> the fact that the fact that there are
other people who have been cited for 175 violations, the fact that we do use um the town does use uh Papa as uh part of the research on any code enforcement violation. We'll stipulate
to that, but that's, you know, I I don't see the relevance of it. >> You have the town has to establish the basis for 175 violation. That's what I'm getting to. >> Okay. Go ahead and answer, Miss Thomas. >> Uh, currently three,
>> including that would include this one. >> Okay. >> As well, >> the other two properties, ma'am, do you recall the addresses or where they were located? >> Off the top of my head, no. You could I'll show I will show you some in a minute to see if you've cited those. So,
okay. When you're there's been some testimony regarding first of all the property here in question. >> Did you make the decision to charge my client and Mr. Garcia or does someone else in the town talk to you about making that decision?
>> We have all all town staff has spoken together. When I say Oldtown staff, upper management through down through me, >> who was it that first brought it to your attention that you need to investigate um this particular piece of property? >> Were you asking whether there was a
complaint that was filed? >> I any if there was a complaint or anyone in your office directed her to go out and do the investigation? >> Upper management >> and counsel >> and that would be Mr. Curts. Correct.
>> Um he is the town attorney. He is not considered upper management as far as >> you said council ma'am. So would he be >> well he is the council. Yes. >> Understand. And would Miss Ramag Ramagalia >> Ramagua? >> Thank you. Um does she speak to you
about this property? >> Yes she has. >> Okay. So let's talk about the property itself currently in the town of Loxa Hatchetic Groves. Is there any lo property that's allowed to receive um what I call an agricultural byproduct of wood
chippings, straw, manure, horse manure, and um for back lack of a better word, ura or urine. Is there any location in the town that can receive that? >> No sir.
>> Yet there's a lot produced here in the town. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Regarding the property that we're here on today, there's been discussion regarding pal piles, very large piles of manure. Has a town conducted any
analysis of what those piles consist of. >> For as long as I've been here, not that I am aware of. Do you know how much from a percentage basis how much manure is actually in say for example a truckload
of that's brought into the property? >> No sir. >> There was a description of the property as being manure and muck. You know what muck is? As far as I know, it's a combination of horse shavings,
urine, feces, straw. >> You know what the technical definition of muck is commonly referred to in the western section of Palm Beach County? >> Objection. I think >> I'm just asking. >> Objection. M. You're Mr. You're mischaracterizing Mr. Suarez's
testimony. Mr. Suarez indicated that what he considered muck was manure and shavings. So, >> I'm asking this witness. >> Go ahead and proceed. Answer the questions as as you can, Miss Thomas. Go ahead. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Repeat the question.
>> Do you know what muk what muck is more commonly referred to in the western section of Palm Beach County? What that really is referring to? >> As I stated, I'm just aware that it's shavings. um used shavings, uh manure,
straw, feces. >> Let's let's identify wood shavings. When you say wood shavings, you mean shavings from a tree. >> Not necessarily. No, I see it as taking the manure and >> putting it through a machine. And And
>> my question is very a little bit more simple. Wood chippings. Where do wood chippings come from? Usually trees >> and straw. Where does straw come from? >> Hay. >> And do you consider those products to be
natural organic agricultural type products? >> Yes. >> Horse manure, do you consider that to be a byproduct of a of a of an animal?
>> Yes. and ura or urine. Do you consider that to be a byproduct of for example a horse? >> Yes. >> And the so what we're talking about on these mounds we're dealing with wood shavings, straw, manure, and maybe
urine. Horse urine. Correct. >> Yes. >> To the best of your knowledge, is there anything else in those piles >> that I'm aware of? No. So to the best of your knowledge, these are all organic um uh objects or organic substances.
Correct. >> I don't know if they're organic. >> Well, trees come from the ground, right? They're planted and they're come from the ground. >> You asked her what she knew. >> I just I'm just trying to refine the question. Do you understand that trees are grown from the ground? >> Yes.
>> Do you understand if they're grown from the ground, they're going to be more organic? Yes. >> And how about straw? You think that's an organic product? >> It's from grass. >> So the answer would be yes. >> Is that yes? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. So we're dealing with all organic products that are on my other than machinery. I I take that back. Other than the machinery, we're dealing with organic product that's on my clients or on this property. >> If I may say so.
>> Yes. Yes or no, ma'am. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. And the mounds that we're talking about that were referred to primarily as manure, will you agree with me that there is at least some percentage of those mounds consisting of manure, but
yet you don't know the percentage of it? >> Correct. >> Do you know what happens to manure and ura once they sit in a pile for say 17 to 30 days? >> They smell. >> Okay. So are you an expert on the
breaking down and the composition of the impact of of the treatment of urine and feces the way my client's doing it? >> I am not. I'm a code officer. I'm not an expert in that field. So, do you know
whether or not if my client is placing the the limited amount of manure and and urine with the wood shavings and the uh straw on those mounds? Do you know what if they break down?
>> I have no idea. >> Okay. So, as of today, do you know what the composition of those piles are? >> No.
>> All right. So, when you first cited my client in December of 2025, after the citation was issued, did my client cease all activity? >> No.
>> What What other activity did he do? He brought in more fill to the east side of the property >> after the December. >> I mean, I'm sorry, let me rec let me rephrase. I'm sorry. It started I'm sorry. It started on the east side of the property and then it came to the
west side. So, the west side being along a road, >> but after >> as of December 30th, I think is the question. >> As of the citation, did my client see activity? >> No. >> So, you're saying he's brought in more
Yes. Come December 30th, there was more Phil that had been brought in. Do you have any pictures depicting the change after the stop work order was issued? >> Bear with me just a moment.
No, I do not in the case file. No. >> It's my understanding that all activities ceased until the town authorized my client to be begin the removal process. Is that possibly true?
>> Yes. Okay. Since since that time, has Mr. Santana been um pro I mean removing material from the property? >> Yes. >> Is is your understanding he's doing it
in protest, but yet he's still removing it. >> It's still being removed. I don't know if he's doing it in protest. >> Very well. All right. So, let's let's talk about this. Um I asked earlier
um I I apologize I've looked through all the question if if we can can you show her my exhibits. So I'm gonna run through my exhibits real quickly. If you'll look at exhibit number one
this appears to be the zoning designation for the town of Luxahhatchic Groves. Is that correct? Yes. >> So the green area on a road it appears that the entire A- road is in the green
shaded area. >> We'll stipulate that it's AR. >> Thank you. Let's go to number two. Number two is section 20-015 permitted uses for agricultural zoning districts.
I've highlighted agriculture as being a permitted use. Will the town stipulate to that? >> Yes. >> Stipulating to that. Let's go to number three. In number three, have you seen a copy of this document before?
We'll stipulate that it's a application for registration or manure blending. Correct. Okay. Let's go to and that was August 28th, 2025. Let's go to number four. We we've already stipulated to the
fertilizer license, but we have a fert are you aware that my client has a fertilizer license to process manure and blend it into fertilizer? >> Yes. Number six, we have a Florida Health Palm Beach County violation or
inspection notice that was done on September the 11th of 2025. Have you seen this before? >> No, I have not. >> Okay. This would have been a form prepared by Mr. Zolo who is with the
local portion of Palm Beach County. You see that he said facult facility walkthrough and regulation review completed with no objectionable odors no issues. You see that? >> I do. >> And it says there's a satisfactory
compliance demonstrated. Do you see that? >> I do. >> Yes. >> All right. Let's go to number um six. Have you seen the soil regeneration facility status report? a work in progress to FD inspection compliance.
>> I believe it's in the case file. Yes. >> Okay. Have you reviewed that? >> Yes, I've looked through it. >> Okay. And in looking through it, can you get the impression that my client is systematically following best practices
in order to take this organic substance, process it according to the scientist and to produce it into fertilizer to comply with is agricultural use of the land.
objection assumes facts and evidence. Um, we would say we do not agree that this is an agricultural use of the land. Um, and we do not agree that this
property has an agricultural classification from uh the property appraisers office. um the the manure that is placed here um is not produced on site. It is not a
result of any farm operations that uh occur here. Um and we do not uh agree that the applicant is conducting themselves
as represented in that document. All right. Go ahead, Miss Thomas. Answer the question to your to the best of your ability. >> Could you repeat it, please, Mr. Field? >> On the first page, it indicates that horse manure is being combined with wood shavings or bulking material and straw
bedding as needed. Do you see that? >> I do. Yes. >> So, would that be consistent with what you've seen out there on the property? >> Yes. >> And then also it says soil regeneration production there. there is a an
estimated um amount that they look to regenerate the soil during each year. Do you see that? >> I do. Yes. >> And then their faculty or I'm sorry facility overview. You see that they're in the pro that they're that that facility is designed
to receive, process, sterilize, cure, and store organic feed stocks while ensuring environmental protection, operational efficiency, and compliance with regulatory standards. >> You see that?
>> I see it. Yes. Mr. That's what I'm questioning. The document is in our evidence already. So whether or not she sees that it says that, I see that it says that. Did you see any activity performed by my client that was not
consistent with what was in this report? Repeat it again. >> In your site inspections, have you discovered anything, any action that my client may have performed that would be inconsistent with what's set forth in
this exhibit? Exhibit number six. >> Yes. >> What? >> It's not allowed. >> We'll get to that, ma'am. Other >> you asked me a question. I answered it. No, this is why I was asking going through particularly what he was doing.
You've looked through this report. You've seen what the the report says that they are going to do. Have you seen any action by my client indicating that they are not following what's set forth in this report? >> I'm not an expert on this report. >> Let's go to number seven.
A second in inspection was performed on my property uh my client's leased property or the property. Have you seen this document before? >> No. >> All right. This is an an inspection dated December 18th, 2025.
Um another walkthrough by Mr. Zolo. Again, you're saying that you've not seen this before? >> No. >> Okay, let's go to number eight. My picture is not as good as yours, but there was a stop work order that was issued for 17 1470 A- Road. Is that
correct? >> Yes, sir. >> And in there, there were citations that were very consistent with with the notice of violation confirming that the only thing we're here for today is the article 175 violation. Correct.
>> Correct. However, in the notice of violation, you also issued or included a a two-page piece of paper that appears to be a broader uh scope of a violation,
right? But that's that's this is not the 175 violation that we're here on today. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? >> Certainly. the two pages that that are in exhibit number nine.
These two pages right in front of you. You got it. Those two pages do not further explain the one the article 175 violation, do they? They don't address what's raised in the stop work order. Is that
correct? And >> I only see one page. I thought okay 10 has two pages. Yeah. Okay. I see it's before before the number. Okay. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> That 62 pages. Yes. >> That document what did that document
course I'm sorry. Was that document given in addition to the stopwork order? >> It was given with the stop work order. >> All right. So is there anything regarding an um all right that so regarding the violations in in the
notice of violation again other than the tree violations which we're not going forward with we're only dealing with article 175 violations. Correct? >> Yes sir. >> All right. All right. Number 11. You may not have seen this before, but
do you know what this is? >> Uh, no. I have not seen it before. Now, >> do you know what it is? >> No, it just says it is a completed application classification of lands. >> Correct. Your attorney made an argument a couple of minutes ago and the qu the
argument dealt with the issue of whether or not the property was had a classification or use classification by Palm Beach County for as agricultural. Do you know whether or not this is the application that was timely filed in order to have the property classified as
a agricultural use? >> No idea. No. >> Let's go to the next exhibit. >> All right. So the next exhibit should be number 12. This is the subject property, right? >> Correct.
>> And then on page two of number 12, we have um use code is single family zoning is agricultural residential. Correct. >> Yes. >> And then we have a bigger picture. Again, the timing of the picture was
whenever it was with the Palm Beach County um I got that from Palm Beach County. So that would be Palm Beach County's timing of the um of the picture, not not the 217 date.
Let's go to number 13. This is going to start the questioning regarding the the neighbor to the east. It says that the owner is Central Woodbury Country LTD, but again, not I forgot the gentleman's
name, but that's his company or not. I think of >> course. >> Okay. So, to the east of that, do you see where the blue line is and it kind of in encapsulates the pond? >> Yes. >> If we turn the next page, it says property use code is vacant.
Right. Vacant. >> Correct. >> And still zoned as agricultural residential. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And then we have a little bit bigger picture but not much bigger. You see that? >> Yes.
>> Now after the first hearing, isn't it true that we made a site visit to the property with my client uh the town and several employees of the town? Yes. >> Did we not walk through the shared
easement to the to the east side of the subject property and then onto the property which would be Mr. Court's property or that this this subject property? >> Yes. >> Did we go all the way to the eastern boundary? >> Yes.
>> On the eastern boundary there is a canal right that separates that property from the next eastern property. >> Yes. And on the eastern section, did you see any type of land clearing,
raiding, and leveling? As far as uh what land clearing of what? I mean, there's trees there. >> I understand that, ma'am. There's also evidence that the land had been turned
and leveled and graded. You recall that >> that was not discussed. You did not discuss that with me directly that day on site. >> My question is is very simple. When we were on site, did you happen to see that
the eastern portion of that parcel had been graded, leveled, and the work and the ground turned up? >> I don't know about it being turned up, but it was graded.
>> Okay. And on the southern portion of that graded lot, what was stored back there? >> Piles of shavings, manure, >> similar
product that is on the subject property. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, was there any application chapter 175 application made for those changes? >> Not that I'm aware of.
>> Well, you would have seen a viol if it did you Well, I'm sorry. Strike that. Did you consider that to be a violation of chapter 175? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if there is a violation of
chapter 175, did you cite the owner? >> Objection, relevance. >> Yeah, Mr. Fields, I' I've let you go pretty far on this. I I my position, whatever's going on in the neighbor sites have nothing to do with your case. So, you can continue with her. I'm going to let you continue to cross her, but
that doesn't have any relevance to this code enforcement proceeding. So, go ahead. That said, go ahead. Um, Miss Thomas, go ahead and answer the question to the best that you can. >> No, he has not been cited at this time. >> And the is it do you understand that to be an
agricultural use of the property? >> No. >> Okay. So, it's not an agricultural use. It's It's a violation of 175 yet no cert notice has been given to that owner. >> Ask and answered.
>> Right. I did answer it. I said no, not at this time. >> Okay. And why would that why would that property's use be a chapter 17 or article 175 violation? >> Mr. Fields again the use on the
adjoining site were what is before me today is the use that is on the property >> the death application of this rule this article to the my client's property is going there will be an argument regarding certain vagueness to this to this rule >> so you are free to make that argument but what's been going on in the
neighbor's property doesn't have any bearing on that argument >> because it it deals with the issue of how they interpret their own rule that's what the relevance is how they're interpreting the rule um of the definition that I'm going to be addressing in a minute. That's what they're they're the people who enforce
it. So, if they're bringing a claim against my client, how they've interpreted against others, there's going to be an equal um an equal enforcement issue argument coming up to you, too. So, I >> Your honor, these arguments, this is
this is the the speeder who complains that somebody else is speeding and they they went 90 and how come he didn't get the guy that was 75? that's not relevant to these proceedings. >> It will it >> continue. I I'll ask that you get to the point quickly as it relates to your site
because my my jurisdiction over this case has nothing to do with their application on another property. It has to do with what the code says today and the application to your property. If the town is interpreting the certain definition that I'm going to be bringing up in a minute, if they're going to be interpreting that definition to not
include certain other uses that are similar to mine, then my argument will be that my client's use is consistent with what the other ones that have been approved and not precluded by the town. >> There's been no testimony that it has
been approved. The testimony >> you're objecting. I can't get to it. >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead, Mr. fields continue with the questions, but I I'll ask again that you get there as it relates to this subject property quickly. >> So, Miss Thomas, the use of that
property is consistent with the use of my clients the property in question, right? >> Could you repeat the question? the organic the the grading or the movement of of material onto the subject
property, including the organics are consistent with what the neighbor has placed on his property. The I there was testimony that she believed that the neighbors grading of the property and
storage of the um material was in violation of 175. That was her testimony. >> Respect. >> But but she said she hasn't cited them yet. That's her testimony record. >> Respectfully, you're making I mean, I know this is a little bit more of a
lenient argument, but you're making arguments which are closing arguments. I just want to get the testimony out and you're interfering with my ability to get the testimony. >> It's asked and answered. >> She she did I would agree that it has been asked and answered. Miss Thomas, please answer his question. Mr. Fields, restate the question and Miss Thomas, please answer. Miss Thomas, the
material, the organic material that was placed on the neighbor's property is the same type of organic material placed on my client's property. Correct? >> In my eyes, yes. >> Okay. Let's go to number 14.
This is the ERL property. Are you familiar with that property? >> No, sir. F >> roads within the town of Lockache Groves. No sir. >> Yes. >> Wait. No. >> F. The question was F road. Is it within
the town of >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes. I was still on the property. >> That's okay. Is it So, is it your position that the ERT thele property is not in the town of Los Groves? >> It is in the town.
>> Page two. This is again a vacant use description and it's agricultural residential zone. Do you see that? Yes, I do. >> And then the final page, do you see that the the modifications, the gradings, the the digging of the the the
areas along the back, they're holding product, do you see those changes in the land? >> I'm sorry, repeat that. >> Do you see that the changes and modifications of the property in this in this piece of property?
>> Yes. >> Have Have those people been cited for an article 175 violation? >> Um, not by me. No, it there is an open code case on it which is being handled by another code officer.
>> That be the code officer sitting here by your left. >> Yes. >> And when was that one opened up? >> I don't know that off the top of my head. It is not my case. >> Is it recent? >> I don't know. >> I'll ask him. Can I ask him separate
when this one was opened up? >> I have no objection to that. >> Go ahead. >> It was open within 3 weeks, I would say. >> Thank you. Let's go to number 16. This is a T E T R E A U L T Donald and
Sherry Trust. >> You see that property, ma'am? >> 16, you said? Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, hold on. 16. >> Is that off of Chubby Road? >> It has a different name. 16. A different name.
>> 16 uh in this exhibit is >> Perez. >> Perez. Y Perez. >> Okay. What is 15 in your stem? >> 15 is duck puddle south. It appears I've got some misnumbering. >> Mine are different, too. So,
>> okay, let me let's go through. See if you can find a T E T R E A U L TR. should be near the end. Jeff, >> yeah, I don't I don't think it's included here. Let me see.
>> It's 15 in my book. >> 15 is That photo I don't think that um >> Can I go to the witness and just show her what mine looks like? >> Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So this this is the one regarding
T E T R E A U L T. Do you see this property? >> Yes. >> Is it is this prop if this is Okachobee? If I might as you're as you're looking at this, the tetro
property is not completely within the picture frame. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Just want to make sure we're talking about the same property. >> But if you look at this one, some reason papa would not print it, but this property is on the west side of
that road and south of Okachobee. Is that in the town of blocks grows? >> Yes. And that's property use code single family agricultural residential zoning. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And here's a little bit better picture. >> Is that a fuller picture of the
property? >> Yes. >> Is that property decided? >> Not by me, but yes, there is an open code case. >> And when was that open code case started? >> I have um >> don't know. >> Objection. There's lengthy lengthy
history on that property. I'm not sure. You're not testifying. >> I understand that. I am. >> Let's go to the next one, which is the one on the west side of a road, which is the farmland. Do you see that? >> Uh, do you have a name for it or
>> I think he's referring to the duck puddle. That's >> the duck puddle. Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> Second page. That is an egg use classification and it's agricultural residential. Do you see that? >> Yes. >> Okay.
And has that property ever been cited for a one article 175 violation? >> Not that I am aware of. No, I have not cited that. >> And finally, let's go to the Perez property.
J AIR Perez. Next one. This one is use zone A equestrian and agricultural residential. Do you see that? >> Yes. >> And the next page is a picture of the aerial of what's on that property.
You see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, has that come has that entity been cited for an article 175 violation? >> I don't know. Not by me. No. So for an article 175 violation
in your understanding, what type of use or what type of change to the land would this would it apply to? In other words, if you're going to site someone, what are you looking for
to see whether or not it should be cited as a violation on behalf of the the town? if any of the topography has of the land has been changed. >> Okay. And that's called is that like a definition of development? Is that what
you're saying that's being developed? >> No. No. I mean, people can clear land, you know, as long as they follow the proper channels. It's not necessarily for development. >> Okay. So the article 175 um in your mind is not necessarily for
development. It's more for the changing of land, >> the topography of the land. >> So would the would the pl would the rating of duck puddle for example that would be a changing of the topography of
the land each time they grade it? Right. >> Objection. What's your objection? So, >> my objection is the is to the relevance of Duck Puddle to uh this situation. Um,
Duck Buttle is an ongoing agricultural operation um that has probably been in existence um before the time that the town adopted
its um FDA regulations in 2017. Um and so I failed to see the relevance of the question. What we have on this situation is a property that has there
is a large amount of fill that has been placed on this property. Whatever the material is, it is fill. Um, and that is why it is subject to 175. Respectfully, you're are the question
was what's the relevance? You're going through facts not yet in evidence and you're arguing the entire position. The question is from the town's perspective, if there is a a change of the topography, right, would that constitute
a violation? That was a question, >> right? And she's she's answered that. >> I did. I He objected. I didn't hear the answer. She She answered >> she answered to your prior question. You asked her what constitutes a violation of 175 and she told you twice that a change to the topography constitutes a
violation. So whether there's been a change to the topography of Duck Pond, I agree that is not relevant to this case that is before me today. >> I'm going I respectfully I'm building that record just in case because I think >> I know but please don't use the code enforcement proceeding. You may have another civil action. This is we're
going to be here all day, sir. With all due respect if if you're going to question her about every other property in the town and and her interpretation of the code. I'm going to allow you to continue. I'm going to ask her to answer the question. But as I've asked you before, please try to keep this limited to the violation that is before me. her application of other other code
enforcement cases is not before me today. So, Miss Thomas, please go ahead and answer the question. And Mr. Fields, please continue to get to the point about your property. >> Okay. Go ahead and please repeat. >> The question was each each cane season, do they not modify and grade the duck puddle property?
>> That's not the question that you asked. That's a new question. >> You know, respectfully, I don't need a witness telling me what I asked you because you can either answer the question or not. You know the answer. Answer the question. >> Miss Thomas, go ahead.
>> Yes. 175 is for changing the topography. >> No, that wasn't the question. His question, if you could repeat the question. >> Repeat your question, please. >> Yes, sir. Does the grading, the setting, the modification of the dirt or the cane field at at duck duck puddle duck puddle
each cane season and the growing of the cane and then the harvesting of the cane. Does that not constitute a change in the land? >> I'm not an expert in that, so I I don't know. You've you've testified that you are here as a a code enforcement officer
looking at the change in topography. When they do those acts, do they not change the topography? >> Sure. >> And that has not been seen as a violation of article 175. Is that correct? >> I have not cited them. So, no, I don't
know. I have not cited them. >> I I I just have to clarify. You don't consider that to be a change of the Let me just get the question out. You don't consider that to be a change of the land
subject to an article 175 violation. >> It is. >> It is a violation. >> I'm sorry. You have to answer out loud. >> Yes. >> But yet no sight no citation has ever been issued to him. >> Not by me. No. >> Anybody else in the town that you're aware of?
>> Objection relevant. I can't I can't speak on behalf of previous code officers. I don't know. I don't have that answer, sir. >> No further questions of this one. >> Any fur any cross-examination, Mr. Suarez?
>> Mr. Suarez. Uh, no, he's answered my question. >> Okay, very good. >> I need to put Mr. >> If I could have uh >> I'm sorry. >> Redirect. >> You can redirect. Yes, sir. >> I apologize. >> I'm sorry. Um, the handmade Ch.
Um, with respect to respondents, exhibit six, which was the soil regeneration facility status report uh that respondents filed with the Department of
Environmental Protection. Okay. Um question was asked as to whether there was anything inconsistent um in the operations that you saw um on the site
versus the operations as described in this um report. I'm going to point you to um eight annexes um page I don't know if it's page six
there's yeah there's a numbered page six um on the report it's entitled aerial view of the soil regeneration production site indicating key process operations and management are Are the piles
of manure and shavings that you see on the property, are they limited to that area um as indicated in the report? >> No.
>> So the operations have exceeded the area of the property that is described within that report. Correct? >> Yes. I'm going to you to in the report site conditions and
surface drainage um in 2.0 I know there's a third paragraph that indicates that windowross are to be um a maximum height of
12 feet. Have you seen uh piles of manure and shavings well in excess of 12 feet in height? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that operation would be
inconsistent with the report. Correct. Yes. >> Have you ever been to the duck puddle site? >> No. >> Before today, did you ever look at the aerial of duck puddle um from a code
enforcement and perspective? >> No. Have you, to your knowledge, has the town received any complaints with respect to duck puddle? >> No.
>> Um, with respect to Mr. Garcia's property and the the papa information that I think is respondents exhibit 12.
Has that property property in question have they received an agricultural classification from the property appraisers office according to that document that has been submitted?
>> No. Yeah. Are you aware of when applications for agricultural classification are approved by the uh um
county tax appraiser on an annual basis? >> I don't know the exact dates off the top of my head. I know beginning of the year. some. >> Do you know the date that there would be an approval?
>> If the answer is no, that's okay. >> Do you know the date? >> I believe it's July. >> Um, don't have any further questions of this witness at this time. Would you let me recross on that how heist? If not, I
understand, but I was I'm run I was going to run through a 175 questions I can ask my client then if not >> No, I mean I think the photographs speak for themselves as it relates to the height. I've heard testimony already. Um let me ask before I let you go back
>> if I could have just one one additional question. >> Any redirect to Mr. Suarez? Um uh not uh not a Mr. Suarez. Uh I'd like to ask Miss Thomas one more question. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Okay. Um,
if the manure in shavings was dirt and there was those kind of dirt piles to the same extent on this property,
would you have cited them for a 175 violation? objective form. >> Yes. >> Speculation. >> I'm letting it all in. So, go ahead, Miss Thomas. Answer. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, uh, whatever the material that
altered the topography and constituted the fill, um, that someone used, that's not material to your analysis as to whether or not there's been a 175 violation, is it?
>> No, it doesn't. Because it's changing the topography of the land. Doesn't matter what is dumped on the land. >> There's phil being brought in, >> right? >> Whatever constitutes that fill. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I follow up to that question.
>> Mr. Curts response. >> I'm inclined to let him ask one more question, but >> yeah. Is the material that is dumped and placed on the subject property, is it being processed in a temporary fashion
or is it permanent? It's it it's permanent. >> All right. You've had your you you had your chance and you've had your one extra question. Um >> I'll deal with that with Mr. Santana. >> Okay. So, does does the respondent have any witnesses to call? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Mr. Santana.
>> All right. >> Should he stand at the podium? >> Yes. If Are you okay with that? >> I'm fine. I I I know what I'm going to ask him. It's easier just given the microphone setup if if they're okay with that just so the record gets him. That's fine. All right. Your name, sir?
>> My name is Po Sant. >> And who are you? >> I'm the operator of the operation at here at work 70. I'm the CEO of the Sana Western Pic Financial.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. Respondents also manager of MAC. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Fields. >> Thank you, your honor. Mr. Santana, how long have you been the CEO of Immaculate Ways and Santana
Equestrian Private Financial? >> Uh, Immaculate Ways since 2022. Uh, Santana Equestion Private Financial since 2018. >> And what are the purposes or the primary business functions of those two companies?
um is to establish a closed loop of uh collection of um organic waste in order to transform in soil uh regeneration. uh amendments to
uh apply over uh distressed lands uh for water retention and as a environmental um option for the use of organic instead of chemist.
So if I can summarize then you take several products primarily wood shavings which is an organic product, straw which is an organic product, horse manure which is a byproduct of an animal
and um urea or urine from a horse which is again an organic byproduct. You take those products and you go through a process to turn them into a fertilizer. Is that correct? That is correct. >> Can you tell the the magistrate what
process you go through? >> The specific formulation is about a um intense collection of the material over the origin in farms. So we can um make a
optimic use of the ura generated by the the the waste much more important than uh anything else. It is a type of uh uh nitrogen sequestration in order to uh
avoid the ura to politize into ammonia which is a process that takes uh in the first 48 hours past exposure to oxygen. So the company has established a since the pilot program a system of collecting
daily uh aquestian waste in order to uh create exposure for grinding and degradation and uh inoculation over uh types of carbon source such as wood shavings and mostly the the bar which is
the what would create um a filtering of all this nutri nutrients in order to reverse the the what the landscapers are facing right now is the black um black days effect with the addition of
chemical nutrients on on the environment are creating runoff to water supplies canals and all those impacts that have been affected that with our type of process because we have access of collection we can not only retain those
nutri nutrients uh over the material but we also uh make sure that all the water uh has a negative runoff instead to use water uh running to the canals. Uh our carbon sources uh act as a sponge that
keeps all the nutrients at that material that will be uh slow release and biodegradable effects to be reapplied to distressed and and sandy fields. I had asked a question earlier whether or if
the officer knew approximately what percentage of the material constituted manure. Do you know approximately how much of a truckload that comes in? How much manure is in that truckload? >> Uh it's an it's an average between five
and 12%. >> So a very small percentage of that pile is actually manure, right? >> Yes. like the the using the definition of the manure I would say the pieces dung that comes together with the
collection it would be uh it estimate between 5 to 12% depending where they are being collected. So now you've also seen the pictures and you've heard the testimony about the placement of the material on the property. I asked the
officer whether or not it in her opinion it was permanent. Can you tell the magistrate the process that you go through regarding when the truck comes in, what's done to it, what's done with the with the material, how long it's there, the process, and then the
removal. >> Uh we have to make the the collection and do a um physical um mechanical digestion to reduce the particles into smaller parts. uh the department of environmental and
the organic charters and all the agricultural uh guidelines. Uh they demand us to create a high temperature um ambience for those microbial activity which takes places in 15 to 70 days on
uh temperature originated by the the activity of the the pile. The pile has a ratio that uh of um action for the microbial that needs
to be in a specific uh size which uh the 12 ft is an optimized size. We can get that sterilization process in a period way faster than if it was uh smaller. So we we receive we have to keep a
temperature control to make sure that the temperature has enough um the micro biology has enough humidity to maintain the temperatures above 136 uh Fahrenheit
degrees to um create our sterilization and and elimination of possible uh source of pathogens. uh this process is has for safety is repeated uh three or four times. So we make sure that the
part outside of the pile meets the inside where the temperatures are are higher and that creates that sterilization before the second grinding and additional u new material.
um um the normal degradation uh composition until we see the presence of fungi uh fungus coming out of the the the piles. that what that's the first natural indicator that the the pipe is
being cured and that would be what generate the first uh batch of um material to be sent um nutrient analysis to the laboratory before we start either bagging or uh uh distributing as to
offer plants >> that's what I wanted to get to now so once at some point in time is the product bagged or removed from the property. >> At some point the property uh the going to be backed and removed from the
property. That's the core of our business at the end. At the end agricultural component is to sell this material for a a end users such as landscapers, farmers and and other uh uh
uh in need for soil amendments. >> So it's not a permanent change to the topography of the land. Is that correct? No, absolutely not. We we use it as a cycle. uh material comes in, material is being requested by environmental
agencies to be stored and and and moved uh decomposed at the property and the as the humidity uh on on the the weather raises, it will
create us a more uh potential of mature. That's when we start uh uh grinding and begging and the end game is to sell it all. Okay. So, regarding um
regarding any change in topography, the only change in topography would be the addition of let's say wood chips. Right. >> That is correct. And let me ask I'm breaking it down. So a landscaper could
put wood chips on a bed, a landscape bed. That would be similar to what you're bringing onto the property. Wood chips, right? >> That is correct. >> Straw or other type of product could be put in a bed or around a flower bed. Could be technically a change to a
topography, but that's more of an agricultural product being applied to a property. Correct. >> That is correct. That's multiple other similar products uh in the market called black cow manure either uh composed uh
of um uh manure that's being widely sold at Ace Hardware, Home Depot and and that's a that's a very uh common uh product to be applied on on soil increments.
>> Okay. So as far as uh filling of the land, any filling that would be put being brought on by the agricultural products, that's a temporary filling. Correct. >> That is correct. And regarding the
property itself, um, does the fact that there is wood chips or straw or manure being placed on that property that in your opinion does that disrupt the commerce or access to public service during times of flooding?
>> No. I I my understanding is it's uh uh that's handled in uh a controlled manner and uh the material that is being uh stored there actually acts of keeping
the water with us not anyone else. I would guess that if there is a big rain over lockahachi grows right now, our property, it's scientifically proven that's the property that's going to hold
more water than anyone else as of right now into our uh wood shavings which acts like a a water retention sponge uh um instrument. So, is there any impact that you're aware of
regarding the um any type of public or private facility or utility that's impacted because of the placement of the wood chips on the property? >> I don't see impact action. The wood
chips is a it's a method that every single farm in Losah gloves uses to retain the the the humidity and all the byproducts from their animals. Okay. >> And there and you see there's there's no
basis for any type of governmental expenditure of funds to control flooding around that property based upon the absorptive type nature of that temporary product. Right. >> Yes. Right. I I I I I'm under the impression that we are doing what we
were asked for from Department of Agriculture, which is control the runoff and keep the water with us. >> Okay. And you may recall this, I can show it to you, but as our respondents number six,
under site conditions 2.0 know site conditions. The report states that the facility site has suitable soil and structural conditions to support receiving, processing, curing, and storing operations. And
that's what you're doing at the property, right? >> That is correct. >> And it says it's located outside of the 100-year flood plane and maintains at least a three foot clearance above seasonal high groundwater. You see that? >> Yes, that's correct. That's seat.
>> Now, there was some testimony regarding the height of the piles. Has the height or the height is the height of the piles being reduced? >> They're being considerably reduced. Uh uh the file that we got a uh warning
from the department of health after they every single file was completely eliminated. Has any um has any structure been constructed on the property? >> No permanent structure.
>> I think you if you testified to this he may have if I asked him again I apologize. I just want to get my format of my question down. If there was a rapid flood, a rapid rise of flood waters out in that area, there's a canal that's on the west side of a road.
Correct. >> Yes. >> And that would absorb any type of water that would be theoretically rising in the canal. Right. >> Right. >> But the way that the road is designed is actually tilting in towards your
property or the property. Right. >> Yes. Correct. >> And on the west side of the objection the lack of basis that um Mr. Santana has any expertise in uh civil engineering. You could
>> I I'll let him answer. Go ahead. >> Great. Mr. Santana, have you stepped out on the road at the entrance to the property, looked at the road itself and see how it elevates to the west? Yes, it's an observable uh uh image that you
can see that there is a burn uh built by the theahhatch grows over the canals. They are constantly work over there throwing um a lots of dirt inside of the canal in order to have that uh uh permanent uh
physical protection. not as an expert but it's an observable uh uh angle that can be seen at any people's eye that the water brings to inside of the property not the ground.
>> So if there was any type of rapid rise of water it would be contained within the property itself. There is correct launch. >> Have a brief second. You want to just look at my notes. >> Go ahead, sir. So,
regarding um we saw some pictures earlier today regarding the easement um there was a there was a culvert between your the property you're on and the neighbor's property, right? >> Correct. Did you in looking at the in
looking at the the um the way that the culvert is placed, does it appear that water would be flowing from your property into that property or that property when it rose flowed into your property? and mostly the the the water
that comes out of that uh uh lake as of uh testimony of the owner uh when the rain comes it moves into us >> because it's it's that because of the culvert is raised higher on his property. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. >> So it's not flowing from your property into his if it if the if the lake rose it would flow into your property. there is uh the impression that we have and the testimony from the land owner.
>> Let's talk about the removing. Since we agreed that you could remove, how many days have you been expending to remove the the material again under protest but remove the chips?
We are as of now since uh last hearing where we got the the permission from the town to introduce uh uh foreign equipment which is 100 yard trucks to come in and use but we have done at
least for uh four weeks as of now uh of increments and preparations to remove. We had to secure uh another land in in Belg in order not to have to lose
totally our uh product and they are being removed as as quick as we can. It's been very expensive like so far we have spent like $89,000 in drugs uh uh moving. It's a very very simple math.
Back they charge $350 per per load to bring it over there. And we have taken as of right now uh uh a massive amounts of of those loads in in like a week. It
was something that we could have too much time to negotiate prices and and also the the incidence of the cost of having an operator at the other side. We had to secure the property under another contract
that's been very hurtful for us as of now. Uh the the cost of the the the moving of our uh by product. >> Okay. Let me ask you switch a couple switch a topic here. Um again just to
confirm the horse manure again I I apologize for asking this but can we take judicial notice that urine and horse manure is a byproduct of an animal? I think we can take a stipulate
to that. >> We can. Okay. Um sir is the property that you're using the I'm sorry strike that is this referred to as a source
separated organic processing facility >> there is our our representation through the the Florida Department of Environmental Protection yes that's is
uh uh our our um our situation. Yes. >> Is it also commonly known as a blending station? >> Yes, it also qualifies at because we
have this type of uh blending of the product between all the items that we we have uh measured. Yes. >> And is the area where this is being performed
uh the property is the farm product well is the byproduct of the horses along with the wood chips being processed on this property. Do you consider that to be a farm under the statute?
>> I believe that >> objection and he can enter his opinion. There's no expertise that has been identified. >> Go ahead, Mr. Santana. Go ahead and answer. >> I do believe that and we went all through this process to be approved by
FDAX for the Department of Agricultural customers and and they agree with us. >> So in the I'm about wrapping it up. So while after the first inspection by the
department of health, did you get any indication that there was any error whatsoever with how you were running the business? >> I you got the indications that uh agency was uh satisfied
with the process. We had had uh few meetings uh in Palm Beach County where they they understood that uh the the activity was
uh combined with all the agricultural well standards that they they request. And that meeting, that inspection was done about two weeks after the original application was made to the D. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> And then for three roughly three months, there was no issue until they came out a second time. >> That is correct. >> And regarding the second time, did they
give you a period of time to cure or to make modifications? >> Yes. uh until February the 2nd. He wanted the size of the pile that was in front at rest. Uh that was the the
specification that that was uh uh was given to us. He also mentioned that he uh unders understood that the material that was being uh deposit
would would create a barrier or any >> a burn a burn >> a burn that it would create a barrier that that that would that would hold the material inside the property >> the water lecture. And after they gave you the deadline, then you received the
stop work order. >> That is absolutely correct. >> And then you stopped work. >> Yes. >> And then only based upon the agreement of the parties with the D and the DO did you start the removal process. >> That's right.
>> Are you still seeking to proceed with the um blending station registration with the D? >> Yes. have we submitted a response to the DO the the department of health in
response to their um their uh inspection? >> Yes. >> Are you and we submitting a mitigation plan to the D seeking their approval? >> Correct. Yes. We
had hired a um MIT engineer uh from a company to uh develop together with uh uh the department uh the best uh uh leeching control uh program in order to
to comply with their u requests. So, and finally, do you believe that the that the use that Well, I'm sorry, shouldn't I ever say that
that you've applied for the agricultural use with this with Palm Beach County, correct? >> Yes. >> But your the property zone agricultural residential, right? >> Yes. >> And agricultural is all the is the only
use that you've been putting it to. Correct. >> Absolutely. And finally, um, regarding the modification to the land, we had talked earlier about the cane fields that any modification to a cane
field is going to be a temporary modification because is that correct? >> To my knowledge, yes. >> And your use is a temporary modification, correct? >> There is uh handling of the product is a temporary modification until the product
is removed. to his final uh customer. >> Okay. And little leeway. You've looked at you've you've seen the pictures um or we've you've heard the testimony regarding the other properties in the town that have
had uh the placement of material on the property even in either vacant or resident residential use categories including your neighbor. Right. Are you doing anything different than what they're doing?
>> Uh no. Okay. We are we we believe we're using the absolute the same material from the absolutely the same origin. Uh we just have uh uh the either technology
or uh means to to do that in a in a manner to create a a valuable commodity. maybe all of them are seeking uh or or treating that as other type of
use. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. I think Mr. Curse may have some follow-up questions. >> I do, but uh if we could take a few minute break, um I don't want to rush my questions too much. >> Yes, let's take a given the length of time we've been going, let's take a 5m
minute recess. I too could use a quick restroom break. So, we will uh recess at 11:26 and we'll come back at 11:31. So please be prompt. Nobody straight. All right, it's 11:31. Is everybody ready to reconvene? Madam court reporter, are you ready? All right, it's 11:31. So, we
will be reconvene. >> Mr. Curts, go ahead with cross-examination. Thank you. Um, Mr. Santana, your uh company entered into a lease with the GarcAs for the use of the
property. Is that correct? >> Yes, correct. >> Um, and when did those operations begin? >> We were testing the site uh under
his uh uh ownership first. And our contract to my recollection should be starting uh in formally in July but uh I have to check the
document. I don't know that for sure but we we were operating there before under uh infant uh um operator. there was a a group of uh professionals
that were using the property to that type of uh activity. >> They were doing the same thing that you're doing now. Correct. uh that does that uh you >> so
your operations um on the site began prior to your application for registration with the department of environmental protection. Correct. There is correct in the sense
that we were operating under u agricultural uh best management practices and we we decided that it was convenient that uh invite the department also to um uh
create a second tier of our uh prescription. >> Yeah. Um, and the department has not approved your application for registration at this point in time, has it? >> No, the the department >> So that's
>> I'm sorry. He was explaining his answer. Don't cut it off, please. >> Well, he Go ahead, Mr. Curts. He >> the department has not denied my application. >> They haven't approved it yet. >> Denied. >> Thank you, Mr. Santana. Go ahead, Mr. Curts. Okay.
Um so the uh there has been um a meeting with the the health department in which they have indicated that your application
is problematic because of the proximity of open water um and uh portable water wells. Is that not correct? It's partially correct. I would say inaccurate. They have
indicated that a variance should be applied and they have uh requested to us time for them to indicate to us what would be the variance that will be accepted. Since it is uh um common knowledge
public record that absolutely every other station that does the same activity such as ABC such as ARO such as Atlas and soil has the same limitation the same procinity for or for wells and
canals. So they were they had offered to our council a formal response what would be the variation to be applied and then we were placed on hold to see if that's feasible for us or not.
>> So that was a plea on your council's part um that they might consider alternative measures >> object to form. Did your did your council ask them at a
um meeting that was held whether um you might be able to submit alternative measures um to alleviate the proximity issue with respect to the canal um the
lake and the um portable water. To my understanding, the uh request from my lawyer is that they would give us the same standard of the orders. And how would be if we could
comply on these situations since uh the department has acknowledged that other uh other companies are at the same
>> with respect to your pending application. Have you submitted alternative measures to the department? Yes. When did you submit those?
>> Uh we've been in contact uh full time since after the application. We had uh uh extensive uh correspondence with uh the department Lauren Conor and and all the the there
had given us a extension until March 28th to build the place as we expect and then they would come back for a physical uh uh uh examination in order to decide
if it was satisfying or or other uh procedures will be requested. >> And so you have submitted a plan that identifies alternative measures to the department. Is that your testimony? >> Testimony is that we hire a U biotech
engineer to >> and he has not submitted anything at this point in time to the department. >> We have been in constant communication with the department. uh you have access to one of those uh uh missions. I I believe you you that's where you are uh
uh bringing all your uh >> have you submitted alternative measures to the department? >> Our intention comply with what they requested from us. >> But have you submitted a plan that
identifies what those alternative measures might be? my this partic of this is attorney client. Part of this is my work that I've done. I don't know if he wants me to stipulate to what's been done. He knows what was done. I mean, if
I can I I don't know how to address this. I don't want him testifying to what we've talked about. But by the same token, >> well, I don't think he's the question wasn't about what he's spoken to you about. The question is what was submitted to the Department of Health. >> It would have been done through me. I mean, if if you want to ask what I've submitted to them, maybe that will help
this ask ask that question. >> Okay. What has your attorney submitted on behalf of your operation to the department in health or um DP,
identifying alternative measures to comply with um the situation that you have with respect to the proximity of the well and the um open bodies of water. We have uh submitting status reports,
position of the material uh uh alternatives of filtration and and natural uh um contention uh to reduce uh any type of uh water
through uh biochar uh erosion socks. uh uh position uh uh of uh natural blocking of water to leave the property. In uh centering and pointing out uh some
uh proposed uh uh landing uh places for the branding material and >> when did your attorney make that submittal? Do you have an approximate time frame? >> There's been several sudos. I we we have
to keep uh uh close contact with them in order to provide the temperatures of the piles uh maturity uh times of um turning on the piles. >> And have you have have you submitted
this? Is it a report? several. >> Okay. Have you submitted those to the Department of Environmental Protection? >> Yes. >> And at this point in time, they have not responded
um with a decision on whether or not they're accepting those alternative measures. Correct. >> I believe I believe there is a very controversial uh and alternative situation that they are still analyzing
the the >> that's not on is that is that on your property >> then the answer you can repeat the question. or department to my knowledge is taking a little time because they are
adapting those measures for other uh places that are following into the same situation and the questions was raised all together. Uh there was several meetings between our council. One of them you were present um over the
discussions and how they will address all this as you called mitigation programs uh uh in order to uh be not only following their due
process but giving an equal answer for all uh types of the same business. Um your company submitted a sole uh soil regeneration facility status report um which you have uh has been labeled
respondent six. Are you familiar with that document? >> I'm going to be referring to it. So I don't know if you want to go over anything with it. Give it to him so that he can see it. But um >> go ahead. Sorry.
>> Uh is your operation compliant with this the report that you submitted? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Those are not forward information as is it speaks for itself. It's called status
reports. >> Okay. Um so where is the storm water collection channels to maintain positive drainage on the site? the the size of the the
material itself as I as I mentioned before uh every storm work storm water they will be absorbed by the the uh amount of uh wood shavings that we have there which has is
main uh um use for water absorbing. So, as I mentioned before, you might defer my opinion. An expert might agree or defer. We use the the what we so call piles as
the sponge to keep the water inside of the property. >> Okay. So what I understand from that answer is that you are
using the manure and shaving material as your burm and your um protection against runoff. >> The shaved. Yes. >> Okay.
Um and uh in uh on page three of the report um 2.0 0 site conditions and surface drainage. There is a paragraph that says all
operational areas are graded with a minimum slope of 2% toward the designated storm water collection channels to maintain positive drainage. Um and that site grading prevents ponding
or sta standing water in feed stock contact areas. Um reduced lee generation and maintaining operational efficiency. Topograph contours at twoft intervals
extend beyond the facility footprint to illustrate drainage gradients away from sensitive areas. That's a statement in the report. >> Yeah. >> And and you did you did you do the things that are indicated here?
>> Those things were done there prior to us. The property has uh was uh with this topography uh before we came they used to have uh if I'm not wrong they were parking uh trucks and trailers there. So they had a a um concrete pascalic
surveace there. They would keep the the product there. But those those topography was identified uh before uh our uh uh possession of the which conveniently
works perfectly for what you were doing. >> Yeah. And once again, you're the, as I understand it, the you're preventing runoff from your property to another
property um by using the the manure and the shavings as a burm. Okay. So when rain hits that and
the the burm is sloped on both sides as we saw in the pictures. Correct. >> Right now uh the the the setup is not finished yet. It was I was
stopped. So, so when the when the water hits >> your berm made out of those materials, >> it runs off in both directions. Correct. >> It doesn't I No, I'm I'm asking you. It It does not.
>> It will it will be contained over the the the absorption of the the the porosity of the material. So, you're saying that the do the do the pictures that were
presented today, do they accurately reflect um the status of the the property? Object object form at what time? >> Well, at the >> you guys created the intervention, we
could not uh uh proceed with our uh uh compliance with you. So the pictures the pictures from December 19th that showed the property the code officer um testified that was the condition of the property on December 30th. Um that they
were in the same it was the property was in the same condition at that point in time. Um was that act did those were those pictures accurate as to the condition of the property on December 30th? >> Check to form with the question. The last part I don't have an objection
to. you testified and then you asked whether or not the pictures um were accurate as of December the 30th. That I think is proper. Were the qu were the pictures accurate as of December 30th? That's a proper question. >> So go ahead. Mr. Santana asks answer.
>> There's pictures of work in progress. >> Okay. >> You still had until the 29th of March to present to DP of what they were expecting. So there was workable progress.
Um and there is reference in in this to the Lee management system. Um which would prevent
uh bleach from um going into the uh the uh uh the adjacent um
water. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, what is what is lie? >> The type of liquid that would carry uh uh excess of nutrients that could uh travel
to other uh surface. >> Okay. And just so I understand your leech protection system is the material itself. Is that correct?
the most used industry. If you check for trucks and roads, when you have to do any kind of oil type of change, they you need to provide a a a bucket of shavings to avoid that oil to drip in the in the
in the surface. That's uh uh we have also um added uh chart of filters on the on the which is way above the necessary but for us seems to be uh a a double
um benefit because we can also reuse those charcoal as nutrient sources uh on periodically replacements and We definitely work with the wood shavings as is very commonly done in any type of
uh water protection. The what we just called erosion socks when they get lock those socks and they put all those organic material in to filter and hold uh anything that goes to them.
>> Do you have the charcoal and organic socks? Um are they >> they site >> are they at the are they in between Mr. what we've referred to as Mr. ports his property.
>> There is a large amount of uh biochar that was uh purchased uh as initially when we we started and they are probably one of your pictures. You probably can show them several big
bags that are on the corner of the property or work. Well, uh, do any of the pictures show this material um, in a position of operation, not stored, but
process. That's impossible to to give you a a final uh idea what is going to be produced. If we don't have the ability to keep on,
>> if you have the ability, we just spare. >> Uh um in the status report on page six, you show an aerial view of the soil regeneration production site. Um
your operation has considerably exceeded that area, has it not? Uh we under discussions and learning with uh existence authorized a station such as
Atlas Pets and soil. We need to probably copy the the people in compliance. they have uh adopted a um perimeral use of their material to hold
off the water. So that was one of the discussions that we would have to do with the DP if they would be appropriated. We don't need that much space. Uh everything that's being uh uh photographed and picture right now it's
a consequence of a interruption of our uh uh plan. This plan was put in place uh way before uh stock orders and all this uh enforcement
actions. So we we were like a having to do mitigation to be able to get trucks there to remove material and push you have to push fires to one side to the other side. There is a traffic uh uh demand to get those big trucks turning
in there and turning out. So uh um the picture today might defer with the intended uh uh project but the the idea remains the same. >> Yeah. Um
so your original operation did not begin with an application. >> Go ahead asking. Yes, >> I have one question. Just go ahead and ask.
>> My original application. >> No, your original operation did not begin with an application >> for the for your regenerative for your um your site uh to D. Well uh as of uh
beginning of uh program we were uh running the operation over best management practices with Florida Department of Agriculture >> customers um not uh involving DP uh
there was never a requirement it's a situation for many others and we decide just to join the two agencies to have a a a higher tier of uh uh >> your original application for registration did not include the
alternative measures to address the proximity of the water um and the wells. Correct? >> No. Because originally as a uh application only we do not have those
setbacks. Those setbacks normally are involved for uh a operation that works as transfer station which is totally what the opposite what we're doing. That's why you can see the lots of material there because we are
not a transfer station. does not operate as an industrial uh uh status nor uh with the requirements that uh the department requires for a transfer station that has no control over the
chain of custody or source of the material. So we we we operate uh only as a registration to the DP and and under the agricultural uh uh
setbacks which is >> okay >> different >> your application for registration is uh filed in accordance with uh chapter 62-709 of uh the Florida administrative code.
Is that correct? >> Initiative uh another amendment to our previous council that we if that would uh wouldn't be a way to uh get that going
which they never said they couldn't. They gave us what to do. including with Mike Ox operate under just like agricultural uh uh status and there was conversations. We have many many uh
meetings as of any type of situations of this. They they raise questions, we bring the answers, they raise other questions, we bring another until we finally meet at the end into a
compliance that satisfy uh uh uh both sides and so far that's what we're trying to do. As I mentioned before, you said it was not approved. I said we work tonight. >> Um, as a part of the application
process, did you review 62-7 09300? >> Um, initially I had a a meeting with Mr. uh of the DOA and the EP in Palm Beach and they had
suggested that I I went through what they what they thought. >> Okay. Um did you review the regulations associated with uh your proposed registration?
>> Right now I have I have read a few times. uh by the time of the application I just did the application for uh uh the OO agent orientation. >> Okay. So you at the time of your application as I understand it you
hadn't read the regulations. >> Uh the day that they asked me to do that but I told me uh uh I I went before they told me to do. Um you
did not um apply to the town of Lock Lockache Groves um for a permit to uh deposit um manure and shavings on the property. Did you? >> Did not.
>> Okay. um you did not submit an application with respect to uh chapter 175 uh for the fill that you were bringing into the property. >> I did not I don't think it's a field.
It's a product or a product. It's a it's trying to be a little bit more explanatory. If it if my product would be trailers, I'm bringing in those trailers. Those trailers will occupy lots of space. Traders are going out. So
I did not I don't cons I never consider them as a few or a permanent uh uh change. >> Um and so there's a constant recycling of the materials. Is that what you're
saying? >> That is correct. >> And to the to the person viewing um the operation. Oh, let me back up.
when you when you put the the piles together, um is it a top-down operation? In other words, if I'm making the pile and I have the pile,
um uh where does the the next pile go? Does it go on top? However it comes it's not a a it could be on the side it could be on top. It all depends on the ratio of temperature that we are uh trying to reach.
>> Okay. So how are the piles built up? What is the what is the mechanical process in doing that loading and the loader moves it to the side. That's going to be that pile that
that batch. >> So, does the does the does the truck that brings the product in does it come in and does it tilt up and drop all of its product out or is there a loader that takes it in and out of the truck?
>> Uh there's the the in this type of operation the truck it's a um you said tilt up. on those those. >> So, it's a tiltup dump. >> There's three types of trucks there. There's the trucks that pushes that out,
the trucks that don't >> that that that we don't have a preference. >> And then you have you have a loader come in and move the pile around that has been dumped and it might put it
on top of a row. It might start a a new row. >> Normally, you have to do different patches. So that that that that is like a like you think about a sugarcane field here the new one goes to the other batch
otherwise it would compromise the the the composition uh data by bringing new material with old material it would interfere uh uh the process. So it comes as you
acquire a certain amount of cubic feets that you achieve the the best temperature ratio. Then piles go to sleep and then you have to start making another one. temperature
thermometer goes on top until you start if you have a necessity of taking that quickly. You start the process or you can do the the the slower process which it takes two to
three months to get to the the the cure automization and then it goes to grinder and bats. >> So there have been piles on the the perimeter of your property.
um for many months now. Correct. >> So there is files that were moved after we started those conversation and that's files in the center that are there for uh many
that's as the cycle uh requires again as I said we are not a transfer station. We don't we receive collect store we process and we distribute. And
the you said the topography w was not changed permanently but it's constant that these piles are there. our cycle >> like every day >> we have we have an agitual cycle between
six to 12 months between receiving curing and putting it out. So it's could go earlier he he prefers that he goes late. Um and are you familiar with Mr. Garcia's
application for uh a um an agricultural classification for tax purposes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and
is that application pending at this time? I believe they so what I what I I heard they got a window for application all the way to March and they will render their changes uh the 4th of July. >> Yeah. So, as of this point in time, there's no
agricultural classification on the property. >> As for the use classification, >> right? >> The classification of the property under what is it 193461 is the use
classification. Yes, >> we will not previously seeking for tax exemptions does not change the the nature of uh activities. I believe Mr. Lee would be
very happy pay less taxes uh but there was never the the coefficients that alter or defer with our agricultural nature of the business. And
the reason that you don't think that you needed to make any application to the town is because state law supersedes the town's authority to
um uh to regulate this. Check the form. You can answer >> say preempt or supersede but uh uh to my knowledge as an understanding of the right to farm act uh brought by your
example and very very much discussed here today. If I start doing let's say that I do an agricultural uh uh activity that I'm planting pine trees over over the course
of several years those pine trees will alter totally the propography the airspace of the property and to my understanding the agricultural preeemption comes to try to go around
those uh uh regulations that would make uh impossible to do the agricultural over uh um municipality uh change or I don't know how you call
the chapter. So but that's to my knowledge not not not trying to say at any moment that because I'm I'm a future I can do whatever I want. I just understand that to be able to the agriutral process to be possible
especially on those zones that are close to metropolitan areas. Uh the the statute needs to be respected otherwise it would either boot the agricultural intent or at least
be seen as a chilling campaign or set up to fail. I don't have any further questions. Couple real quick follow-ups if I can. Go ahead, sir. >> So, regarding the first inspection by the DO in their report
and I believe this was respondent or R5 or R1 subt 5. This is the September 11th, 2025 inspection. after they did the it says uh facility walkthrough and regulation review
completed and it has your name down there also. Were you there with Mr. Zolo when that regulation or I'm sorry that inspection took place? >> I was at the phone with him at the walk through and my tractor operator as you
can see there is money Pis was the the physical uh witness. So that was roughly two weeks after the application for registration was submitted. Right? >> That is correct. And and and Mr. Zolo uh
on the meeting with the Department of Environment was present. >> Okay. So you walked the property, he saw the process that you were going through. Did he say anything negative about what you were doing?
>> No. He actually measure uh distances. He took samplings of the the material, tested for olders.
Uh he did say that he sees absolutely nothing abnormal and to his understanding that was uh uh compliant uh uh to the extent of his department uh
activities. >> Okay. Then a second inspection was conducted on December the 18th. Did he talk to you about the burn? He they they I I I extended I don't know
if it was a cortisy or respect every single communication that I was doing with the Florida Department um of environmental protection I was always copying uh the department of health on. So he was pretty much well uh uh advised
of the intent of this burn construction and he when he came for the second time he definitely noted a pile that he did not like the the the height it was that he wanted that addressed and then he
understood our uh uh uh intent of variance of uh building the BM around uh the perimeter to to keep the the water inside. >> And did he give you the impression that
that was an agreeable methodology of keeping of separating any water that may be on the property from the 200 ft to a body of water issue >> 100%. that shows in the status that a a
burn it is one of the options for uh uh those type of uh exceptions. >> And regarding the potable water well issue is do you recall well is there are there concrete slabs on the property now?
>> That's originally as I mentioned before there was a parking of bailers or trucks. So they had uh uh before uh a uh bricks as spaltic uh mass and and cement
platform over there where they used to park the trucks coming in and out where is exactly where the pile is sitting as well. Now >> in addition to the concrete base you mentioned biochar. What is biochar?
Uh biochar is uh a product out of uh a exposure of carbon structures and and with uh or biological source. Of course, if it's char it's organic, if it's
carbon is organic, we know that. That creates a a pure structure that's full of pores like little cups which is intended to retain water, nutrients and microbial
uh life without the exposure to run off. Some people used to like uh >> so for the 500 foot setback issue you have concrete padding you have biochar
and then you have the wood chipping slash shavings the and the straw that's acting as a filtration system >> there is correct and uh again that was been work in
progress. >> Understand >> part of that might not be the way we wanted until we we we recuperate the ability to to finalize them. >> And have you submitted to the Department of Health a response to their request
for you to address these issues? >> Yes. Okay. I think that's all I have. >> If I could just clarify one thing based on what he just said because >> I've done that to you. >> Um when you were talking about the
Department of Health uh being out there, I think you mentioned the date as December 18th. Were you aware that they went out on January 12th? That's okay. And at that time, uh, they
identified that the canal on the property that connects to the lake to the east is within 200 ft. Um and uh that um
the setback requirements of 200 feet for natural and artificial bodies of water um and 500 ft for potable water wells. Uh it does not appear that any of this property can be used for storage or
processing of solid waste. was aware that canal was there since the first visit. I was aware that the >> Are you aware that that was a part of the report that the department of health submitted? I I that
>> and so I'm sorry don't >> together right >> uh uh made a uh with the department of health a search for all portable wells prior uh all of this and they had not located any well at this register and
and that was our uh starting point for the uh I I was also aware that his visit of checking all the setbacks was >> he's familiar with that. I'm going to show it to him schedule for the February
the second uh for those grass and for some reason he decided to come uh a little earlier. I'm going to approach uh this witness. >> Go ahead sir
>> and show you a picture. Are you are you familiar with that photograph? and uh anything. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Did that come from the department of health? >> Uh I don't know. I never got that from you're saying I am familiar with the region and what you're saying.
>> Well, council stipulate this came from the department of health. >> I I I can't do I can just say that I've seen it before. It's been involved in our conversations and you could show it to him. I don't know exactly what I don't know. They if they came from them they never sent me
trying to >> that it was the subject of uh the meeting that took place. >> I will I will stipulate it is the substit subject of the meeting that took place at about that time January whatever and
>> this year January 12th of this year >> of 2026. >> Yeah. Okay. and that he's as he's testified, he's responded to that meeting. >> Just want the the there's clarity that uh the Department of Health's position
as of January 12th was that uh the site was inappropriate because of the proximity. >> I will not stipulate to that. >> I'm sure not. I mean I mean if if in the town that the lots are between five four three uh
acres where they have horses there's absolutely no possibility to not have manure and 500 ft for that's absolutely impossible. Every single line that you drop either either you're well in your property or
someone else is unovable. the the the setback is uh for the >> I would dare for 90% of blocks it will not fit. >> All right, Mr.
>> Mr. Curts, is that it? >> Uh that's it. >> Okay, Mr. Fields, any further witnesses? >> No further witnesses. >> All right, sir, you can sit down. All right. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Fields, the floor is still yours.
>> I have no further evidence um no further evidence to present unless we're into argument. >> Well, we need to get Yes, we need to get there. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Should we proceed with the argument?
>> Yes. Article 175 um uh deals with uh the development of land including the filling of sites. Um
the intent um includes in 175010 um the necessary to manage the filling grading um and there are another number of other things of property.
Whatever this material is doesn't make any difference when you have these huge piles that it's undisputed um the amount of uh material that has
been brought into the the site that alters the site's topography. Um and they are obligated to um
aced to the town's regulations with respect to um flood plane development um and submit an FDA um application.
They need to identify how they're going to control the runoff of the water. What you heard from the uh defendant or the respondent is that
we've got BMS of material and you saw in the pictures that they were 15 to 20 feet high and that they were sloped in a manner that would run off onto neighboring property as well as
their own property. Um and uh he says, "Well, that's a natural control of the the lie." Whether it is or not, you still have to submit um for approval by
the the town as to how that water is going to be managed on site. Um their report talks about grading operations and and direction um that
the property has been altered or is going to be altered um and uh yet there is no application for from uh to the town for that.
I suspect the argument is going to be um that the town is prohibited um from regulating this activity because it is a farm operation.
We initially dispute that it is a farm operation. There is none of this manure um or shavings that is produced on the property. um it is brought into the property from
other locations. There is not a single horse on the property. Um there is no current classification of this property for agricultural use by the
uh property appraiser. that classification is a necessary prerequisite um to the um application of 1633 36 3162.
Um so you have here uh a simple situation um which is akin to many other situations where people bring in fill of all kinds
uh to a property and they need to address it from our chapter 175 regulations um and address the impact that those
materials are having on the flood plane. And it's it's just ludicrous to me that we would see that kind of mounding over the extension of the property. Um, and
it not be just like dirt or anything else which is organic but needs to take into consideration how it's impacting uh the flow of water on the property. So,
>> all right, Mr. Curts, you're finished. >> I am finished with my 175 argument. Um, uh, there may be things that I haven't anticipated that I would like to be able to rebut in Mr. Fields argument.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Fields. What's ludicrous is that my client sitting here with this allegation against it when every other one other than possibly one that's been done very recently or a similar type of material
actually worse than my clients has not been cited. you this is a chapter 17 or an article 175 violation hearing right I asked early on I said you'll see I'll connect the the reason why I'm addressing these
other points the issue is not whether or not there's a change in topography that's not in any article 175 topography is not there it it was a selective use of the term it's they
might change the topography In fact, the definition of development is so broad that it is really it's really lacking in the ability to be enforced because it deals with any type
of change to property and what does that mean any type of change? I asked what about the placement of wood chips in the garden? What about the placement of the garden? I didn't go through all the nurseries that are being that are here. I did go through the placement or the um
the sugarcane field. Every time someone touches and changes the property technically under their broad definition, they want to say that that's development. My client has done um we'll get into the agricultural use in a minute, but what
my guy my client's doing is is complying with House Bill 21, which has now been incorporated in the chapter you. Okay. So long story short, he's bringing in a product. It's not acting as a transfer station is acting as a temporary holding
spot for the the processing and then the chipping and then the bagging and then the removal of the product. In effect, everything that's coming on is going off. There is not going to be a permanent change anywhere
in that property. It's not being developed. So I asked about what about this change and what about this change and what about this property where they cited cited cited. No, even the neighbor this is what this is the ludicrous part if we're going to use the terminology. I
won't use it again but he used it first. If you walk across into the neighbor's property who's apparently being affected by this pond, right? His pond's being affected a little bit further. They've had a greater go in and and level it
and it's now a big holding area and they've deposited manure, wood chips, etc. back there. She was there, the other lady was there, Jeff was there, I was there, and so was my client. And we walked around and there's an open
violation if it was interpreted as a violation. And that was my point. it wasn't interpreted as a violation because if it was a violation then they would have cited them immediately. I mean it's right in front of their face.
There was no citation. My argument to you is this. They're not interpreting the word change or the word development in their own code to address this type of agricultural use. They're not. I
pointed out the examples to you of um cane, sugarcane, the neighbor next door, a couple of other properties that that depict changes to the property that were not considered violations. If there were considered violations, they would have
been cited. There was one citation that apparently happened a few weeks ago. Again, I haven't seen that just yet, but at least they finally cited somebody else. I don't know what the the conditions of that are, but at the end of the day, this is not the type of
development or or change to land that this code was intended to address. I will cite to your honor, if you'll go if we go through the code, there is a provision that says, okay, apply that this applies to all
development within a flood hazard area. I will submit to you that while there has been a flood um map provided, there's also been a report indicating to you that it's outside the 100-year flood flood plane. So whether or not this falls within a flood hazard area is now
an undecided issue that has proof has not been presented to you to satisfy that element. Number one, therefore article 175 does not apply. Number two, and that's in section 175005 for your honor. In section 17510,
it goes through the um the the intent of the of the um article and it talks about the purposes and it says to min to minimize unnecessary disruption of commerce, access and public services
during times of flooding. This is an agg This is an agricultural zoned property in the middle of um an agricultural overlay. The entire area is agricultural residential.
All the un undisputed testimony has been that any water that would come onto that property would those wood chips are organic material with a straw and everybody wants to throw the word manure around. It gives it a sexy nasty image.
But my client is the only one that's testified as to the content. Anywhere from 5 to 12% was the manure content and then it breaks down too. So it's not manure. There is manure in the product itself, but it's such a low percentage
that it's not a a primary focus, which they want you to think that it is. The primary product that's on there is straw and wood chips, an organic product and wood shavings or wood chips and straw are going to absorb water. So any flood
plane, any water that were to go on there, it would be absorbed. And there is no minimization necessary and there's not going to be a disruption of commerce. They've not submitted anything to you that said that what we're doing is going to disrupt commerce in any way,
shape, or form. um that there's a inappropriate construction practices. We're not constructing anything, right? No construction is being done on the property. There's a temporary placement of of the product which is being turned
once it hits a temperature, re-chipped or chipped and then bagged and removed. get into um manage filling, grading, dredging, mining, paving, excavation, drilling, operation, storage of equipment or materials or other development which may
increase flood damage or erosion potential. There's that would be more along akin to what the the sugarcane people were doing and the neighbor was doing. We've not done any grading. We've not done any filling. We've just brought
product onto the property to temporarily been stored. So the purpose of again article 175 is not being satisfied. Alterate man alteration of flood hazard areas or water courses, shorelines.
We're not doing any of that. Um damaging public or private facilities or utilities. Again, I asked about that. There was no Mr. Santana said that's not impacted. So the whole intent right here's the
scope. This is what the definition is. This is what they're not really they're not citing other people but yet they're citing my guy and the the whole intent for the article 175 has not been satisfied. So one of the things I asked in the very beginning was have you
talked to anyone about this? Did you make the initial decision? Talked to council, talked to the town manager. Everyone was talking to her. she went out and cited to me when they're seeing all the if if these other if these if
this condition is a violation then the other ones would be violations too. If they're not violating them the argument is that they're not interpreting that agricultural use to be a violation. So argument number one is article 175 does
not apply to this use of the property. Okay. And it's under the the reason that the primary reason I'm saying that is because under the definition of the word um development which is found in 175-270
under the word development it says any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate. Again such a broad definition that it everyone who touches a property would violate that. So how's the town interpreting that? How's it
applying it? And that's why I asked those questions. And the answer is those other those others were not interpreted the other actions which are similar to my clients were not interpreted to be a violation otherwise they would have cited. So chapter 175 argument number
one doesn't apply. Number >> Before you go to number two, could we read me that definition if you would of development? >> Certainly. development. Any man hyphen made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, tanks,
temporary structures, temporary or permanent storage of equipment or materials, mining, dredging, filling, raiding, paving, excavations, drilling operations, or any other disturbance activities.
filling, right? Depending upon your definition of fill, usually that goes into the into a hole. The placement, right? The placement of material on top is not typic not typically defined as a fill. Grading, we do move the material
around, but we're we're not doing that permanent grade for the changing of elevations. Blood plane, right? Say if this were a development and you had Devasa going in digging up all the holes, I mean digging the the lakes, taking the fill out,
leveling it out, grading it, laying your roads, that would be more of the grading. I I would I would submit that this is what this applies to. >> Okay. here. Here a person that brings in an organic material. I'll get to the Florida Farm Act in a second, but that
brings in the material that's temporarily processed there and then removed does not comply. >> Okay. Carry on with the argument too. Thank you. So, >> let me ask before you do that. Does the town have a copy of the code? >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
I'm just getting warmed up. Chad, >> if you if you give that to me and then you come back, he can proceed. I'll wait for the copy of the code to be copied. Thank you. Just give him a second to come back and I'll let you proceed and >> I'll give him a hard time later.
There are some highlights that I have in here. >> That's fine. >> No objection, Mr. Fields, to the copy of the code, >> which apparently includes some highlighting. >> I'm sure you can read through the highlighting your own. >> Thank you, sir. I have my computer, but I always feel like that's disingenuous for you all to not know what I'm looking at, so I prefer to have a physical copy.
I appreciate the accommodation. Go ahead, Mr. Fields, with your second argument. >> Actually, I'm because he gave me a breathing chance. I got to go back and look at my notes. I have to go back real quick. >> Go ahead. >> So, under under the scope again, the whole purpose of this is that the article applies to the development
that's wholly or within partially within a flood hazard area, including but not limited to the subdivision of land. And this is O5 land filling, grading or other site improvements, utility installations, construction, alteration,
remod remodeling, enlargement, improvement, replacement, repair, relocation or demolition of buildings, structures and facilities that are exempt from the building code in the placement of installation. Placement, installation or replacement of manufactured homes or manufactured
buildings. Installation of replacement of tanks. Replacement of recreational built vehicles. installation of in swimming pools and other development. So again, my argument is that the scope, this type of scope is not designed for
my client's use of the property. And respectfully, I think it's a it's disingenuous may be a a strong term, but this is argument. I think it's an improper use of this article as in order
to go after my client when others who are doing using the same type of use of the property are not being viewed as development. So it's a selective enforcement. It's a selective use of the article which is improper. Secondly, I
want to go go over to the Agricultural Lands and Practices Act, which is one chap chapter 163 3162 of the Florida statute. Um, I think by I don't think there's any dispute. Do you want me to give?
>> Yeah, please. That would be great. And if you have 823, that would be great, too. >> I see if I have an extra copy of 823. If if you don't mind, I'll just go through the argument while you're looking for that. >> Go ahead.
on chapter 1 18 sub section 163.3162 per 2D farm product means any plants or plants plant products right which would wood would be and straw would be and any
animal useful to humans and includes but it's not limited to any product derived there from manure and urine were derived from an animal so that would be part of the farm product because it's necessary for my client's
use of the product. So, we have a farm product. We have a farm that's operating with this type of material coming in and it's also processing. That's what they do with the farm product. There was a an in argument or questions from the the
city that said something along the lines of, hey, this material was not on site. this part this material wasn't generated on site and chapter 16 house bill 2011
modified that requirement and now it allows for um it it precludes a government from duplicate regulation and we'll get into that argument in a minute but duplicate regulation saying that they cannot adopt or enforce
any ordinance resolution regulation rule or policy to prohibit restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit any activity of a bonafide farm operation which we're operating including but not limited to the collection,
storage, processing and distribution of a product, land product, a farm product. So from that change at least at this point right my client is able to
transport it in process it and then distribute it. What the county not the county what the city or the town has argued is that our land is not classified as agricultural land pursuant to 193.461 461
and if such activity is regulated through implemented best practices, interim measures or regulations adopted by um chapter 120. There's been no showing that that's even an issue number one by the city. So, as far as whether
or not that limitation applies or not, I'm going my argument is it does not because the activity there's been no showing that the activity was regulated. They would have to show that for this exclusion to apply. Let me get beyond
that point. We have actually applied. I say Mr. Garcia has actually applied for the exclusion and it is pending. And because it is pending and they've provided everything, there's a high probability it will be granted. And not only is it is it a technical issue, but
the property is zoned agricultural residential. So for the city to say, oh, it you're you don't have this highly technical issue, even though they haven't proved the best practices issue. In number, I think it was number two,
respondents. Number two, it was respondence number two, section 20-015 for an AR zoned property, agriculture is a permitted use. So they're per they're arguing that per agriculture cannot be
used on that property from my perspective unless they go through this zone this chap article 175 application. But if when you read chapter 163 3162
um it's my position that they cannot regulate the majority of my clients property. The use one thing that I suspect the city is going to it's kind of like laying them weight for me. It's kind of
like holding their cards back which typically you can't do but I'm going to go ahead and put it out there. One of the things that that I suspect Mr. Curts is going to address is that there is going to there's some type of an
exception to a um flood plane argument which is what we're dealing with here. So what I'm saying I'm not saying that this totally stops the flood plane argument. I'm saying first of all it doesn't apply to my client's use of the
property. not because it's agriculture, but because they've interpreted the agricultural use as not violative of that or of that rule. That and that again, I know you you kind of pushed back on me a little bit, but that's why I made that argument. If a if
a town is going to selectively push a set of facts against one owner but not against others for similar things even when they walk the property and it's right before them and they don't do anything. The argument
is simply they're not interpreting that to be a normal violation and to selectively enforce it is inappropriate. So, even though I'm not saying that the the the the House Bill 211 totally wins this case, that's why I'm arguing it
differently. I am saying that it is an agricultural use that others have been doing the same thing. And because they've interpreted the agricultural use as an exception, they cannot come after my guy for it. And I would ask that the city, that's all I have, I would ask that the city respond to my argument and
not make up fresh arguments to kind of skip ahead. So, I leave that to you to judge. >> And if they do, I mean, you've heard I've I've been very lenient with both sides. Uh, that's always my intention here so that I get a full understanding of what's going on before I make any decisions. But if that does happen, I
will certainly give you another opportunity to to address that. Go ahead, Mr. Curts. >> I will try to address his arguments. First of all, article 175. Um, he has pointed and correctly pointed to 1750
as the scope. Um and the it says the provisions of this article shall apply to all development that is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area included but not limited to
subdivision of land filling grading and other site improvements and um installations etc all the way down. Now when you go to 17510
on the intent um the intent is to manage filling grading dredging mining paving excavation drilling operations storage of equipment or materials and their argument seems to be this is not phil.
materials and it's a heck of a lot of material then um and so even under the best uh case for them it falls within that. Likewise on the de definition of development that was cited in the
definitional sections um there is once again uh the same uh storage of materials and um
so it it certainly applies with respect to um the flood hazard area and it and it is any development that's wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area.
Um you go to 17540 section 175040 that is the basis for establishing flood hazard areas. the and it cites to the flood uh insurance study for Palm Beach County and incorporated
areas dated 2017 and all subsequent revisions and the accompanying flood insurance rate maps and all subsequent amendments revisions to such maps that are adopted as referenced uh part of this article shall serve as the minimum basis for establishing flood hazard
areas. So it is not um the uh the um report by uh someone who may or may not have any um familiarity with flood
flood hazard areas statement. It is the maps that was presented to you that establishes um whether or not the property lies within wholly or partially a flood hazard area. It certainly does. The activity
um that is going on is specifically mentioned as um with respect to filling and storage of uh materials. um uh that uh um impacts the uh uh the
flooding possibilities. I'd also cite that you know minimize unnecessary disruption of commerce access and public service during times of flooding. Um, let's imagine for a minute that we have a huge flood event and all that uh
manure and organic property floats onto the roadways and everybody else's property. Um, because I think that's what would happen without uh an appropriate plan. Um so 175 certainly
addresses um this property um and this type of activity and they need to uh submit an application or as they are doing as they have represented to us that they are doing removing the
material um and getting it back to the condition it was pre-development. Um so uh they have chosen to uh to move in that direction at least that thus
far. We are very supportive of that. Um and it is a matter of time and money mostly money as to how long it will take them since they are uh went into this um activity
without any of the proper applications permitting without um uh securing the appropriate approvals um from the town without securing any approval from uh the
uh the burden and the money is their problem, not ours. They need to expedite the the removal. um with respect to their the argument with respect to 163.3162.
Um first of all the it is 16 it's 163 31623A I think that uh we're referring to and
the the way this is this reads to me and the way I think it reads in in English is that um you uh there can't be a duplication of regulation
um if there are two conditions one the activity of the bonafide farm operation and I'm not conceding that at this point in time but the activity of a bonafide operation including those
things um be on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to section 193 uh46 61 and then two if such activity is regulated through and implemented by um
best management practices interim measures or regulations adopted as rules under chapter 120. Um so the uh the first thing that you have to have
in order for this exemption if you will from the town's regula uh uh regulations to exist is that the property has to be uh um classified as agricultural. it is not a pending application is not um
sufficient to to meet that um requirement. Secondarily, you then have to look at whether the regulation um is uh uh an activity that's being implemented
through best management practices. What we have here is not the use itself. Um it is the flood plane development regulations which are not regulated
um by the um application for registration um that they are that their uh use is going to. Um, so even if
this was a farm product on a farm and the land was classified as agricultural land, what we the regulations that we are seeking to enforce have to do with floodplane management. Um, and so just
as on a um uh a farm, we do not permit we're not um people are allowed to build barns um with
without respect to getting a building permit from the town, but they still have to comply with the floodplane development regulations. ations. This is a similar situation if they met those uh
other two criteria, but they don't meet the criteria. Um, and what I'm looking at 8234, which is where the um the definition
of a farm is. The farm means the land, buildings, support facilities, machinery and other purchases used in the production of farm or agricultural products. Um the farm product
uh that they are dealing with is not produced on this site. it is produced on uh other people's sites and transported here. um under
their argument um if I were to have a slaughterhouse then um that slaughterhouse operation would be governed on that because I'm
getting a bunch of cows or pigs or whatever it happens to be and I am slaughtering them on site and that's all I I need. Now I will grant you that you can have a slaughter house on a farm but
not every slaughterhouse is a farm. Not every fertilizer plant is a farm. Um and the farm uh means that you are actually producing
the product which is to be um refined into uh something else. Um, but as I said, you don't have to get to to that issue because 163 3162 doesn't apply to this property because
the land um is not classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193.461. That leaves you with the city's regulations, the town's regulations under 175 and
the placement of the material on the site, whether it is for storage purposes or fill, which is what we uh believe it is. It has um raised the um the topography of the the property on a um
in an incredible manner. Um uh but even if it is just uh the management of uh materials on a temporary basis that falls within the definition of development and that activity is
regulated by chapter 175 and they need to comply with the requirements of chapter 175 for the what they are doing on that site. Okay, >> brief brief response. >> Go ahead. >> And and if I might I'm sorry, just
lastly, this is this is lastly um they have applied for registration. there has been no evidence um that that
application has been accepted and approved by the uh by the department. So >> all right, Mr. Fields, a brief response. >> Thank you. We're He seems to be arguing a burden issue here and I I understand
it has been submitted but city carries a burden on the one article 175. You must establish the flood hazard area. It's my position that the maps alone are not going to be sufficient to establish the flood hazard
area. What does that mean? That's an ambiguity in their rules, right? That's an ambiguity in the rules. And what does it mean before you can hold my client violation of anything? Number one. Number two, there has been a
again a FEMA map with a zoning with a with which appears to have a certain regulation and one that doesn't have an regulation. The western part doesn't really seem to have a regulation. The one the eastern part has a ae zoning,
but there's been no connection to that being a flood zone, a hazard as applied to chapter 175. Number one. Number two, they keep talking about development. Their their burden to establish they
have the burden to establish that this is a type of activity that would qualify as uh development. Again, because it's written so broadly, any change to the land can be uh development. If this me
if you uphold that then what you're saying respectfully this is my argument that anyone that were to go out and to make a modification plant a garden plant anything uh dig a drainage ditch do whatever they wanted to on their
property u build a baseball mound right build a little field back there put some put clay on the ground have like a have like a volleyball court back there anything such is that technically qualifies as development. And you may
say, well, that's that's not what was really going on here. But who's to say, right? Without clarity in their rules, you can't they have the burden to show clear rules that we violated something and clearly that we knew what we should not do. It's their rules that are vague
that are not clear. Number one. And number two, going back to the issue of the farm product, the rule, House Bill 21 in both 163 3162 and in
823.14 both address the issue of collection collection of the byproduct which would be manure. So there is no requirement and again if the city had it I think they would have showed it to you. There's no requirement that the manure
be um uh be produced on site. So the whole intent of that article that I'm sorry that statute both of them the amendment is to allow for people to bring this material over because there's a bigger picture on manure especially in
western Palm Beach County. We're doing what we believe we're authorized to do. We believe that what they're using is a is a hyper technical definition of development to to stop us. And with that, we would say treat us the same way as as they've treated everybody else.
Don't selectively enforce against us. And we would ask that you deny the petition. In addition, assuming that you were to say um you were considering not or to to find a violation, which I say
to you would that that would be a pro that would be incorrect, but understand how much money and effort my client has gone through in removing it even under protests. trucks and trucks thou I mean I I forgot
I'd have to go back and look at the numbers but I want to say 60 70 $80,000 worth of trucks that they've been hauling going in there and doing this while we battle this out. He has paid a substantial price and I
I'll leave it with you. >> I Yeah, I've heard that uh I heard that very clearly uh in in your witness's testimony. Um I'll let you finish and then I have some follow-up questions. I I I I I'm getting to the point where I'm going to start repeating. So, I'll I
will stop. >> All right. So, a couple of questions. Let me start with um let me start with you, Mr. Fields. So, I I hear just because we you landed there on on the
monetary argument um and you also requested a continuence at the last hearing to allow time. So, just be sensitive to the fact that you don't get it both ways. You can't ask me for more time to prepare for the hearing and then come in here and tell me that your client has continued to spend money to try to comply after you've asked me to
continue the case and not hear it on January 21st. That aside, why hasn't your client made application for the FDA permit? Why not submit an application the >> and at least have that processing? >> The testimony was that we responded to the Department of Health. Once we get
their response, they're probably going to tell us you need to do the waiver with D. So, we're in the process of getting that ready. We're waiting for the Department of Health to respond, but that response technically went in yesterday. >> But that but you're talking about the state agencies. I'm talking about to the
town. Why not have made application to the town for an FDA permit? >> I apologize. I I thought you were talking about the other one. >> No, I don't have latitude to enforce the D's regulations or the DO's regulations. My authority here as we sit here in this hearing is only to apply the town's
code. The concern is that there is no it's even excluded in their code to allow manure to be brought into this town. Number one. Number two, there is
another transfer station across the line in Wellington that we believe that the town manager has been in communication with. We don't believe that we're going to get anything approved in this town. Even if you were to to to make that say make the application,
there is probably nothing that we can do in this town that's going to allow for them to authorize what we're doing because their own code precludes what we're doing >> in a separate section. You're saying >> in a separate section. >> Okay.
>> And if if I'm wrong, I I I challenge the the town to >> Let me ask a couple of more questions before we continue to go back and forth. because I've been doing a lot of listening and I would like to have some of my questions um that I've heard, you know, based on what I've heard this morning. So, I appreciate that testimony
as it relates to the application. I just didn't understand, you know, the testimony of spending $89,000 to remove the material. That seems a lot more expensive to me than making application to at least come to me and say, "We applied on whatever date. We've gotten nowhere with the town." Right? So, that that was the the the reason for my
question. Let me ask you, Mr. Fields, your position as it relates to 163162. I heard you say that that is not um fully dispositive in this case. Does that change if and when you are approved by uh through the application that's in
your exhibit as it relates to the agricultural exemption? >> My position is yes. >> Okay. That once if in fact you are your client is granted the uh agricultural classification, you would not have to comply with 175.
Is that your position? Strictly looking at a chapter 163 and 823 argument, I would say yes. >> Okay. >> There there are other provisions that are in the administrative code that address this. It just depends on which
code you were to go through. But under chapter 163 and spec specifically 163 3162 and and sub and statute 823.14. If my client's application with it with
the county is approved and the agricultural use is approved, then it's our position that the town would not be able to regulate the agricultural use. If we were to try to do something that would require a um a a
particular use of the property, it's possible that it could come in down the road. And I know that's kind of vague, but it it >> So, let me ask you to look at exhibit 11, the declassification of lands application.
>> Yes. So, this is the document that that I perceive that you got this from the property owner. Is that correct? Okay. Explain to me. I'm I'm a little confused at what I'm looking at. So, I'm confused by the fact that the date at the bottom
of it, which is signed, post dates today. So, what is this, sir? >> Um, I I can't answer that. I know I've had an issue with at least with some people sometimes of different um
nationalities, they they date things differently. But I that was my concern. But if you'll look up a little bit higher, >> you'll see this the date the official stamp from the county in January 27 of 2026. >> You see that where it was received by
the county, >> but the testimony of both sides here today is that this has not been approved. >> It's it's in the pending that's that's correct. It's in the pending state because they won't get they can't my understanding again I I won't speak for government but my understanding is that
they will go from you have to get it in before the end of March. I'm sorry. Before the end of February and they make the decision before January 1. July 1st. >> July 1st. Okay. >> So that's why I'm saying we're saying it
is pending. That's the best I can say. >> Okay. Perhaps it's a scrivener's error, but but either way, the box the substantive failure of the document in of itself is that there's no approval box checked. That's >> right. And I I will note that the
signature Although I I've hole punched through it, it appears to be property of Fraser. So that would seem to be their dating, which luckily it's not. I don't think it's my dating, but at least I have the stamp from Palm Beach County
saying January 27th. >> Okay. So, presumably there will be another signature and somebody will ultimately check a box as it relates to the approval at some point. >> Well, hope >> if if in fact it's approved, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Is it the denial gets approved?
The denial gets signed over. >> Gets checked and signed. Okay. >> Well, it's not going to be a denial. >> No lawyers. No lawyers. All right. One more question. Is there a property appraiser print out? >> Yes. >> And somebody's exhibit. Can someone point me to that
>> for your for your subject property? >> If you look at number I think it's 12 respondents 12. It's also in your file that respondents 12 is the property detail print out. Yeah.
I guess just a question, Mr. Fields. I I'm I'm having a little difficulty on the on the uh argument that I shouldn't accept the FEMA map for what it is. So, I was looking at the property appraiser printout because typically the property appraiser printout also contains the
flood zone, but either there's not all the pages of it. But I guess I guess my my question is is if the exhibit says that it's a FEMA printout, I >> not I'm not contesting the printout
itself. Am I contesting? >> You're contesting the dispute between that and the report. Is that >> that's number one. But number two, even with the theme of printout, does that satisfy the requirement in article 175? My position is it doesn't because it's not the establishment of that. But that
may be your decision later. But that's my argument. >> All right. So then I'll leave that for what it is because >> I'm I'm not I'm not challenging the map itself. >> Okay. and whatever you find on the map with the legends that's again that's you
make that call but my position is it doesn't qualify for a special flood hazard because it's not defined as what that would be and my and my my response also is I have the report saying it's outside the the plane but again that's
that's where we are. >> Yeah. Okay. It goes back to the burden issue again that my positions they have to carry the burden. >> Right. All right. A couple of questions for the town and we're going to take it all the way back to 9:00 or 9:05 or whatever time we
started. So, Miss Thomas, your original testimony was that you posted the order that I signed granting continuence in this matter. Yet, I do not see an affidavit of service in the file for that posting. Is there one? Uh
the uh certified mail receipt is there. Yes. For the orders granting continuence resetting violation hearing which was on January 23rd. That was was the day it was mailed out. It's on the um right side under the order granting
continuence and resetting hearing. Um, beyond the pictures. >> Pass the pictures. >> Yeah, it's just like that. >> You would >> Yeah, I can bring it up and
make sure that it's in there. I don't have that page. >> Apologies. >> You might want to take a look. There may like you know on your exhibits the things. >> Well, let me ask that just shows that it was sent though. So, did you get the green card back?
>> No. No. Um, but I do have the pictures on the computer. >> Is that to my client or is that to Garcia? >> Garcia. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I know. >> I can't do anything. Garcia. Yeah. >> Pictures on them.
>> I can't. >> I don't. >> Yeah, she wants to see that. And maybe the there's two copies of the December. No, that was two different people. I just need to see an affidavit of posting. Yes, that's divide two for today's hearing because Mr. Field
stipulated to service at the prior hearing. Uh, he's here today and he had actual service, but I need to establish service for the property owners themselves. >> Show it to Mr. Fields before I see it. Please. >> Now, I will bring it to your attention
that even though it does show 155 road, it is the posting for the gate. Um, >> it doesn't always the I guess the satellite doesn't always capture the
right address on the time stamp on the photos. >> At at that time, we didn't have cell service on that. >> Okay. >> I I can't stipulate that, you know, I can't I can stipulate to my client because I'm here, >> right? >> But I can't put >> Where do you have an affidavit of
posting? That's what I'm asking for. >> Yeah. >> Not the picture of a posting. I need an affidavit. Think I did just in case I missed it. This is the NLB one. But then this one didn't change the date cuz this one is
no dated by me on 121 January 21st. It was notorized. That never got changed. It should have said January 21st, right?
That's my error. >> We can do another one. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. The dates for both. >> Is it Is it what's in the file already? >> Yeah, it's what's in here. Both dated the same, but they're notorized and signed by me on dates.
>> Both one. She has testified that um as to the as to the posting um and if done >> she can execute a new affidavit of service. >> I did sign on 121. It's just I didn't change it here. It's a word document.
>> I understand it's >> Yeah, I mean I take responsibility for that. But >> I'm just saying we're we >> there's there's been there's been testimony in the record and we can um at >> do that can't do that. It's it's closed
>> as I understand it your honor. I understand >> with respect to service is always an issue and it's if it will uh assist in clarifying the the situation we can have a affidavit of service
executed. It's by the same person that she did do that on the 21st as it's the date of the signature. >> So correcting a script scribner's error. >> Whatever. My position hearing is closed. We've had
we're asking >> doesn't go to your client. >> Please don't interrupt me if I'm asking. I'm sorry. >> Gentlemen, gentlemen, go ahead, Mr. Fields. >> I I just can't. You have to make that decision. I object to it. I think we've I think everything's been
closed and I just don't think you although you are asking questions so that maybe that it's not totally closed. That's up to you. Y All right, let me ask another question. I'll pause on that. So, the photographs that are on the left side of the case
file that were clipped together, Miss Thomas, what what's the date of those photographs >> on the left side of the on the left side of the file? Those were not um all my photographs are
on the right side. The ones that are on the left side were included in the uh health department's >> Okay. So those are not your photographs. >> Those are not my photographs. >> All right. All right. And then a couple of questions for you,
Mr. Curts, as it relates to 1633162. So your argument is that the first finding is that there has to be a U agricultural class classification in accordance with the 160 what is it? >> 193
>> 193 461. What is is the town's position that that what what is the town's position? Uh if in fact there is an agricultural classification that is approved for the property is what is the town's position relative to chapter 165 and the application of chapter 1 16 175
excuse me. Uh after a classification of agricultural by the property appraisers office is is 175 still required to be complied with or not? >> Yes. If you'd like me to elaborate, I would be happy to. But the uh the reason is
that um their registration activity doesn't go to all levels of all regulation including it does not um go to the flood plane development regulations and that's independent of the use issue that they
would be presenting. >> Yeah. I guess my question on the subp part A of of 3A of 1633 3162. It says a governmental entity may not exercise any p any of its powers to adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, regulation,
rule or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bonafide farm operation including but not limited to the collection, storage, processing, and distribution of a farm product on land classified as agricultural land. in
pursuing to 1934 461. So this says you cannot limit an activity. I I don't read that to suggest that you can't that it's the actual use itself. It's any activity, right? Is there a definition in 163 3162 for the term activity or 163
somewhere else? It's not in I don't believe so. >> That'll be one of the things that'll have to be contested about this um this legislation. >> Okay.
>> But you know, you're making for me it's difficult uh uh because there's a couple of leaps of of logic as to uh this being found to to be a farm operation. So, um
I I think that the the um I think the uh property appraiser is probably going to deny that um request and we won't get to that secondary issue, but it would be our position that 175
still applies um >> regardless of the agricultural classification. And that that's consistent with the cases I've heard here over the years. Um >> I just address the issue of the farm operation. Go ahead. >> So there is a definition. So in chapter 8 in chapter 163.3162
it sub 2C defines farm operation as anything in 82314. Go over to 8231.14 definitions se subsection 3 subsection C farm farm operation needs all conditions or activities by the
owner lei agent or independent contractor supplier which occur on a farm in connection with the production of farm. So my my client's testimony has been that the the the basically the the
product when it's brought in is being treated I I can't say grown but it's being processed live processing on the farm through the heating and the breaking down the chemicalization of
>> No, I I get all that. I I I understand all that. Um what can you somebody read I think Mr. Curts the definition of farm before. Do you have 823.14 in front of you? >> I do. >> What's the definition of farm? Can somebody read that to me? >> It's land, buildings, support facilities, machinery or other
appertendences used in the production of farm or agricultural products. So >> agriculture >> I'm sorry agriculture products. So if you go to farm product, it see goes back to >> Yeah, that one I have. Yeah. Okay. >> So basically it's are they making the
farm product? >> Yeah. Yeah, I don't I don't even think I have to get to that. I don't I don't think I have to get to that. Um, and just the I don't disagree with you that it is a
farm product under the definition, but I I think the the I don't I don't think that that that absolves your client of responsibility for complying with with 175. 5. Um,
and I think the testimony is clear that there isn't an agricultural classification. So, even if your argument was that that fully absolved you, that isn't in place yet. So, uh, I'm not sure that I need even get that far on this. Um, the code
All right. And I hear, Mr. Fields, I hear your arguments. And again, as I told you much earlier in this hearing, you know, you may have other um other claims against the town, but you know, I hear routinely I I both prosecute many code enforcement
hearings on a monthly basis, and I also sit in this chair and and listen to to both sides on these on these matters. And um very commonly people come come either before me and uh or try to argue at hearings that that because somebody else wasn't found in violation that that
how is somehow selective enforcement or some mislication of of a code or or whatever the argument is. But that just so we're all clear that is not what is before me. I understand your argument. I understand why you're trying to make it. Um, but my only job here at this hearing
is to listen to the facts that were presented and apply those facts to the town's code. >> If the town's code applies. >> Exactly. Right. But but application to the neighbor's property or application
three three blocks over that is not for me to decide today. It it doesn't have on my decision. Um, you can certainly use it and you did use it in your argument in terms of uh the town and how it interprets its code. But part of my job is to read the language of the town code, to read the language of the
statutes that you've argued, preempt them from applying their code, and to to make a decision uh as it relates to my understanding of the code, my understanding of the law, and the facts that have been presented to me from both sides at today's hearing. So, while I've heard that testimony, I just want it to
be very clear that that I I always at at these hearings, unless there's very extenduating circumstances, I let most evidence in because I think that benefits everybody in terms of the best decision being made. Um, I just want you to understand that although I let the documents in for the other properties,
my ruling is going to be based strictly on the on the subject property today and what's what's provided in the photographs and the documents that pertain to that site, not uh any other operation or site that is in whatever proximity within the town to your client's property. Um, but that said, I
I I I have heard many cases for FDA permits over the years. I I I think that the statute that you're use that you're trying to say preempts the town. I I don't disagree with the town that until
you have that classification, you're not a bonafide a site. So I I agree with you that that's not fully dispositive as it relates to your case. Um I have ruled many times not on this particular issue. I I don't recall one of these ever coming through, but certainly on permit
cases, other code cases, maybe there have been FDA, but not for the same uh material uh coming through, but the the Right to Farm Act is is very commonly argued to apply much more broadly than it than it actually does. And although the legislature did create a little bit
broader of a preeemption in the last session, um I don't think that's again dispositive here because we're not quite classified. Your argument is that you will be soon, but I don't have documentation despite the post dating, which must be a clerical error because we're not even to February 22nd yet. Um,
and there's no approval in that exhibit. Um, that classification hasn't been made. So, that does that statutory section is not triggered to, in my opinion, preempt the town from applying 175. I think even if it were to be have been granted by the property appraiser, I still think you're subject to the FDA
as I read their uh the statutory language and their regulations. Now, having said that, we have to get to whether the documents and the photographs in the case file suggest that you have uh triggered their 175 provision. So, I want to walk through a
couple of those sections that I heard both of you argue here today. And I I again I think the uh FEMA map stands for what it is. Um
I I understand that there is a brief sentence in the report that was made. Um that I don't actually believe I heard testimony as to who produced the report or where it came from. It's not dated. So I'm not actually sure of it source as
we sit here in this moment. But um I I do agree with the town that the >> I'm sorry. If you look at I apologize. If you look at it, >> it's on page very first page. It said it actually contains who it was
prepared for and the date was se November the 5th, 2025 by Inspire Life Technologies LLC. And there's a Dr. Mark code a e a e z. You see that? >> Yes, I do.
>> I apologize. I just want to make sure that you had that. >> Yeah, I I I guess I see that. I I don't um I'm going to leave that alone. I see I see that there is a date on it. Um but I haven't heard from Mr. Bayz and I
didn't hear any testimony about who Mr. as is or who this was prepared for. Uh so I'll let the report stand for what it is. I admitted it into evidence. Um but I don't think in and of itself that statement on p in on page three in section two I don't think that's
significant to to discredit the the FEMA map um that was also entered into the record. So uh I don't think Mr. bias. I again I don't know who that is, but he he doesn't supersede I haven't heard any testimony that he supersedes FEMA or
that his conclusion is somehow uh of greater weight than the FEMA map uh that was also entered into the record. So uh while I agree that there's a statement as it relates to the flood plane, I'm not sure that that uh in fact I'm certain that that doesn't invalidate the
FEMA map that was also entered into the record. >> Not challenging the FEMA map. What I'm saying is that according to at least this doctor's report, it's outside the 100year flood plane, right? And the question is whether or not that
whether or not that FEMA map equals a flood hazard according >> No, I yeah, I understood. I I heard that, but what I also heard was testimony from your client that and I heard Mr. Curts cross-examine your your your witness as it relates to page six
of that document. So this report is is written as if the scope of activity is limited to the areas on page six. Your your witness testified that the activity exceeds the box. So >> that's correct. >> The report may say that none of what's
within the box is within the 100-year flood plane, but I don't have testimony that supports that one way or another. In fact, I have exactly the opposite. So >> I'm sorry. Where was the opposite? >> By your witness that >> No, I'm sorry. the town's perspective on the FEMA map. Where does it say that? Is
there an explanation of the flood zone stating that that's a flood hazard area? That's my question. >> It that's that's what it says on the map. It says it's zone AE. >> Okay. So, zone AE. Where was the testimony for zone AE?
>> That I think it stands for itself. I'll let the town respond, but being in a flood zone is being in a special flood hazard area. >> Town, do you wish to respond? >> I will. And I will because you are
exactly correct. And the AE I just Um I'm looking at the FEMA site which says flood zones talking about flood zones
and uh special flood hazard areas SFHAS um SH SFHAS are labeled as zone A's a zone AO zone AH uh zone A1 through A30
zone AE. So this falls within that special flood hazard area um classification. That's the that's what that AE means. >> And it says that on the in the fine print of the second page. Is that
>> where are you reading from? >> No, I'm >> I read it on the small map. a small map earlier when we were looking at those maps >> under the uh legend on that second page of the map. Um after that first
paragraph, then it has zone A and then it says zone AE. Um I got readers on it. >> I'm sorry. I read it earlier here. It's on it's on the top of the on the legend. I read it when when I was looking at this map before. It says the 1% annual
chance flood 100 100year flood also known as the base flood is the flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The special flood hazard area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood.
Areas of special flood hazard include zones A, A, E, Ah, AO, A R, A something. I can't read A99, maybe V and V. So that that's what I used to to make that conclusion when we were reviewing these much earlier in the
hearing. Um, and as I indicated at prior in the hearing, the my review of this map against the zoomed in version, uh, they appear to show the same areas, just when it's zoomed in as it relates to where the the blood area actually is.
>> So, the highlighted areas are the AE zone. >> That's what the map itself says. Yeah. But the other area that's more towards the house on the west side of it other than and then >> it may not be in the right
>> but if you were doing development on any part of that property um it would be subject to see point the 175. All right. So that's that's
the maps. Now let's go back to 175. And what the parties read to me in 175.005 says the provisions of this article shall apply to all development that is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area. So the evidence that's in the record is
clear that that a portion of this property and a portion of this property even where uh the material itself is stored is within the special flood hazard area. So I I don't I understand everybody's arguments here, but I I think this is as simple as you need to make application
to the town for 175. Um, my understanding of the town code and and all of my application of of and and purview over these code cases over the years has been that um if you're within the the flood zone and you're altering the land and the the code, although I I
agree with you that some of the language is is a little bit generic in the code. I think some of the language is actually very specific in the code in terms of what activities chapter 175 is intending to capture. And while I I get your farm arguments, I the testimony that I have
on the record today by the tenant who is the operator on the site, I mean, it's very clear that that material is coming in and and going off of the site prior to the the sessation of work by virtue of the stop work order. Um, but I don't think in my mind
as I read this code and as I read everything else that's applicable that's been argued by both sides. I I've heard a lot of argument that whether it's temporary or permanent uh has some bearing. But I don't read the town's code to require a permanent alteration of the land. I read this language to say
that any alteration of the land if it's within partially or wholly within a special flood hazard area requires an FDA permit. So, I I'm I'm not inclined to find that that there isn't the need for I haven't heard evidence that that
this isn't an AE zone. In fact, the testimony that came in without objection. The small map is clear that this is within the flood hazard area. The testimony of your client was that this is material and there's been argument about what percentages of of manure versus area. I don't even think I
have to get to that. I don't think it matters. um any alteration of the land uh that's within a special flood hazard area. And that makes sense because this the town's code is intending as it says in the in the intent section to try to make sure that um activities that are
done on land within those special flood hazard areas and this is not in just the town's code. This is in many other codes. This is relatively common um to make sure that in in flood zones that that development activity is regulated in a way that is protective of the
neighbors because the site is by its own uh characterization by FEMA a little bit more uh subject to flooding. So, uh, I I don't read that that the scope of what's going on as it relates to this business operation on the site doesn't fall
within this 175 um code language. And I do not have sufficient testimony to to fit you within the preeemption of the of the state law because there is no agricultural zoning classification. And
even if there was a classification, that's prong one. you have to get the classification, but that doesn't preempt you from complying with the town's code. That may preempt you from a lot of other things, but it doesn't preempt you from uh a flood plane application requirement. So, I I'm unless I need to
hear anything else from both sides. I'm inclined to make a ruling at this time. Um I'll give both of you an opportunity to say anything that you'd like me to hear in in terms of a closing statement and then I'm going to make my ruling. So, I'll Who would like to go first? I just wanted to to reference that I
believe in the file there is um uh the um cost uh assessment that was um put together by the staff um and there is a cost of $49 $4966
um that would like to um be assessed if uh you find that there is a violation Um, if you find that there is a violation, um, they have the they certainly have the right to apply for the FDA. We would
encourage them to apply for the FDA. Um but from a timing standpoint the most effective way to deal with this is to do what they are have been doing which is removing the materials and um and
eliminating uh that because I think that can be accomplished based on the progress that we've seen that can be accomplished within the next 30 days. >> Okay. So what >> there's there's two two means of
complying with the the violation. One is that they can uh comply by submitting and adhering to the FDA. They can also um remove the the material. Um, and you
know that would not preclude them from getting an FDA at some future time when they have appropriate plans and any of those other certifications that they are in trying to get from the the
state or the property appraisers office. >> So essentially what I think I'm hearing the town say in terms of remedy is that you're asking for compliance within 30 days. >> Yes. or appearance at a fine assessment hearing. After that, is there a recommended fine amount?
>> Uh, $250 a day. >> And then you were pointing me toward your administrative costs sheet, which I saw in the file earlier. All right. Any further closing statement, Mr. Carts? Mr. Fields?
>> You know, I do. >> What's it? Yes. I'm sorry. I I realized what you said. You said I You know, I do. >> Yeah. You know, I do. Um, so just again, I'm not sure if you ruled or if you're leaning towards a ruling. >> I have not formally ruled, but I have
been giving you some suggestions as to uh where where I may be headed. >> Just want to give you my last my last pitch. And again, you're you you you've heard the position and I didn't respond a minute ago, but the position from our
perspective is from a definition of development, right? In the change of the land in what what you kind of espouse is that realistically any change of the land no matter what it may be may constitute development. And I gave a couple of
examples, right? So if someone were to want if if someone were to vote flower garden, vegetable garden, whatever they wanted to do, that would constitute development. And I'm not I don't think that this was intended to go that far. So I specifically went after the
examples of the other properties in the town which have not been cited. And again, I I hear your your argument. It's kind of like, okay, if you get a speeding ticket, why don't you get get the guy beside me, right? I got that. I'm not saying that they should have
cited. I'm using it in a different way. I'm saying that because they didn't site. That was their interpretation of the of the article. Because they didn't site the neighbor next door that's done the same thing that my client is being
is being um singled out for. and the other people in the town that have done similar things, altered property, they're not being fined is our argument is they're not interpreting it at as qualifying as development.
If that's true, right, and again, I understand you have to make that leap, but for a government to step into this room, argue to you as a quasi judicial officer that they were charging my client with a violation of an article
when the other people who are right next door are doing the similar things and they're they're not charging them. The only explanation is it's either selective enforcement or they're not interpreting the action as violative of the article. So from those two
perspectives, I would say still I would argue to you there's been no showing of a of a of of what they believe to be a violation that it's only because it's my client. I'll leave it at that. Uh the second point is that again I have to go
back and go through my notes how much money my client has expended. There's been a significant amount and it's been there's no dispute that they he's been trucking uh material out of that property for past 30 35 40 days
and in doing so again he's incurred substantial expenses in trying to remove. So, one of the things is that if you're looking at fines, I would tell you that he's already paying the fines to the removal.
And we would ask that no fines. If you want us to remove the material or make application, I'll have to talk to my client about that, but I think those are two things that you have available to you. Um, but I would just say don't do the fines because he's already paying for that significantly.
>> So, and I appreciate that. And just so we're all clear in terms of process because I know every every attorney doesn't handle code enforcement on a regular basis, but this is just a violation hearing and as I understand how this case was cited based on the documents that are in evidence, this was cited as a standard violation. So no
fines will be imposed today. Um my job if I'm to find your client and ultimately actually the GarcAs in violation uh of the listed code sections, I my job is to give respondents a reasonable amount of time to comply. you've already been given some time to comply uh in the notice of
violation. I granted you a continuence because at that time I didn't think that uh you'd had enough time. So typically in these hearings I give respondents additional time to comply to make sure that again my job is not to be punitive. My job is to ensure respondents are moving towards compliance and I'm I am
an incentive to help that get accomplished. So um no fines will start today. fines would not start running until after the date that I specify in an order that I draft as a a result of this hearing. Um, and you would come back to a second hearing before fines
are imposed. So, the way that my orders typically work and the way that they'll work in this case is I give a compliance date. If you don't comply by a specified date, you come back to a fine assessment hearing. I look again at the evidence that is presented at that hearing with regard to what your client has done between today's hearing and that next
hearing. And if there is something, you know, if if you come back to me at a hearing and you say, "We applied to the town on February, tomorrow, February 19th, for an FDA permit and you come back to me at whatever the fine assessment hearing date is, and the application's been sitting in the town's
inbox for 3 months and the town has done nothing with it, I'm obviously not going to start fines running because something is in the town's uh inbox and is not being processed. So, uh, there is my point to you is there is a second opportunity for you to explain to me factual circumstances that may or may not have led to compliance by the date
that I specify in the order that I grant. So, um, no fine start today, just so we're all clear. Uh, I always give additional time to comply, especially in the context of permits because permit applications and permit issuance is not a typically not in a one day, three-day,
fiveday. Um my experience in the town is that FDA permits themselves take a bit of time to get uh issued. So um I will grant a time that I think is reasonable. Uh the town has asked me for 30 days. I do not think that that is reasonable. So >> I absolutely will give you additional
time. Um because again my job is not to be punitive. It is to make sure the parties are on a path to uh in this case there are multiple parties but that the respondents are on a path toward compliance. Not I don't I don't decide how you comply with the code. I decide today whether or not there is a
violation of the code. It's your job to decide how you want to comply. So to Mr. Curts's point, you can either if I find you in violation, remove the material or you can apply and obtain the FDA permit. I don't prescribe how you how you achieve compliance. That's up to your client. Uh and ultimately up to the the
GarcAs in this case as well. But my point is additional time is always typically always granted unless there's some extenduating circumstance. Um, so with that, I think I've heard everyone's final piece. Is that accurate? >> I if if if you're looking at finding a
violation, would you consider 90 days? Number one, and number two, would you consider or think about the scope of the remedy regarding the removal? because there could be an interpretation that
there's a um 6 in worth of stuff that's been not scooped up. That may be a violation. I'm just really leerary about um the potential violations of our efforts despite all the efforts we're
making. >> So, I I hear you. What I don't typically do because again like I just explained you can comply in in more than one way typically. So I typically my orders do not specify uh and in this case in all
cases actually unless there's very r very rarely and I I don't like to do it. Sometimes they'll the request will be to make application within a certain time and then have a permit issued within a certain time or or whatever. But I don't usually specify um because to your point, it's not my job to determine compliance. It's the
code enforcement officer's job to reinspect the property and and determine whether you're in compliance. So my orders will only say comply with whatever the sections that I find you in violation of. It will not specify that that is I think where you're going is to a one foot above one inch amount of
material. I I don't get into the weeds on that. My order will just say comply with whatever the sections if if in fact I find you in violation. Uh because I don't make the determination and that puts me in a position where we come back to a hearing. The the code officer is the one who has the authority to determine whether you've complied, not
not me as a special magistrate. So uh the order will not do that. I I was inclined to uh grant a 90-day period. So that is likely what I'm going to grant uh because I think you'll need at least that. And if I hear again at the next hearing that there's an issue
that is not within your purview that that uh doesn't allow you to comply timely, I'll certainly entertain that at a future date. But I just want to um let me pause there and make sure that was your parting parting words. Mr. Field, >> give me any more time. Just >> you're done. You're done. I hear you as
done. Mr. hurts. Anything >> um compliance within 90 days uh we think would be excessive. Um you know using
the analogy uh that Mr. Fields had put forward of a flower garden. A rose is a rose by any other name. This is not a rose and it is not a flower garden. I I appreciate the uh the poetry as I as
I take it there uh at the end. Um with that, let me start with the um procedural parts. So everybody's evidence is in accordingly. So the record is clear. Uh as it relates to service, I will find
that Mr. Fields, although you are not a named or your client is not a named respondent, uh that you had actual notice of today's hearing by virtue of your appearance at the January 21st, 2026 hearing. So I will find that uh and you're here
today. So that usually um means you are aware of the hearing but I recall your presence at that prior hearing. My my uh prior order indicates that you are present. So you had actual notice of today's hearing. So with regard to the uh tenants of the property, I'll find that the town had uh legally sufficient
service for today's hearing. I will also find uh despite a scrivener's error on the affidavit of service that based on the testimony of Miss Thomas uh and the affidavit which is included in the uh town's composite exhibit one uh case
file that um Mr. and Mrs. Javier and Rosa Garcia were also served with my prior order granting continuence and resetting violation hearing from that January 21st, 2026 hearing. Uh I have an affidavit of service that was signed by
Miss Thomas and dated January 21st, 2026. Uh and she further testified that she posted uh the prior order granting continuence and resetting this violation hearing at the respondent's property. So, I'll find that the GarcAs have been
legally served for today's hearing. I'm going to find uh based on the photographs in the case file which are dated December 19th.
Let me just make sure that's correct. Yes, December 19th. Um that were testified to by the code enforcement officers that predicated the notice of violation and notice of hearing for the original hearing. um that based on those photographs uh that
there has been a uh deposit of material uh which has been testified to under many names um but again as I stated previously that the actual material uh doesn't have bearing u but that based on the photographs
those piles that are depicted in those photographs um that do constitute development which I want to read into the record for um as part of my ruling in section 75. What section is this? Go back.
>> I think the definitions are in 270. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure I state correctly for the record. Yes. 175-270. um defines development to mean any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, tanks, temporary structures,
temporary or permanent storage of equipment or materials, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavations, drilling operations, or any other land disturbing activities. Uh I I'll find based on the photographs in the case file that the uh piles of fill
uh excuse me piles of material uh that are depicted in these December 19th photographs um that those do amount to either the temp temporary or permanent storage of materials uh and that the uh movement of those
piles around the property also uh are clear demonstrations of land disturb erving activities for which an FDA permit is required under uh 175-110 of the town code. So with that finding
of violation uh given the photographs in the case file, the testimony of the code enforcement officers and also of the respondents uh and for clarity the tenants um on the property that that a violation of uh that 175 110
175 125 175 170 175 240 175 145 175 245 175 250 and 175 5310 uh are in violation based on the piles of film material that are depicted in
these photographs. Um I will require respondents in this case to comply with those code sections. Uh and so all the parties are clear compliance is not application of uh for the required permits. It is actually issuance of the permits. I will have my order specify
that uh as there sometimes is uh confusion about um what constitutes compliance in the event that you do uh intend to proceed with with uh permit application that it's not strictly application it is issuance of the FDA permit. So I'll require respondent to
comply with those listed code sections. Let me give you the exact date. When is the May hearing? The Wednesday hearing. Does anybody have that date handy? >> Be May 20th.
>> 30 uh 90 days is May 19th. >> I bet the hearing date is May 20th. Yes, ma'am. >> It's the third Wednesday of these hearings. My calendar is not loading for some reason. >> All right. Monday is the 18th. So, I'm going to require respondents to comply
on or before May 18th, 2026 or appear at the May 20th uh fine assessment hearing. In the event of non-compliance with the listed code sections, I will um at that hearing assess a fine of up to excuse
me, up to $250 per day for each day that the violation continues thereafter. And again, uh, Mr. Fields, that will be another, uh, hearing. And again, come to that hearing if, if you know, there are circumstances that are beyond your control and your client's
control. Um, that is the time for me to hear all of that. So come to that hearing uh prepared with all of that information because I have found the respondents in violation of the listed code sections. The town is entitled under uh chapter 162 to its cost recovery for
today's hearing for prosecuting today's case. So I will assess those administrative costs uh in the amount of 40966 and those are payable within 30 days
uh of the order date. So, with that, I have made my uh ruling and I will draft an order this afternoon that reflects that ruling that will be sent uh to the respondents uh address of record. Um, Mr. Fields, I'm sure the town could get you a copy of that order
as well. Um, but that is my ruling. I appreciate everybody's time this morning uh and bleeding into this afternoon. Uh, and I presume I will see you all in May as well. Thank you. >> So, thank you. Thank you.