Is Mr. Suarez coming back? >> Yes. He just We'll wait for him to return. Oops. All right, good morning everybody. I'm going to call to order uh the town of Lockxachi Gross code enforcement hearing. Today is December 1st. It's
9:04 by Verizon's time so we can get started. My name is Amity Barnard. I'm the special magistrate for this morning's hearing. Uh first thing I'm going to do is swear everybody in who's here to testify on any items on today's agenda. So, if you're here for a code enforcement matter and you plan to testify, if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hands for me. And let me ask the town, is there
anybody on the uh computer today appearing? >> Uh there could be one person. >> Are they on there now? >> No, not yet. >> Okay, very good. So, can you let me know when they pop on? Okay. Uh if you all are So, all the rest of you are not here for code.
>> You're an attorney. So, no attorneys, just people who are here for code. Raise your right hands for me. Do you all swear from to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. So, a bit about process. It looks like uh with the exception of the final case,
everything on the agenda is uh a violation hearing. So, when you hear your case called uh the town staff is sitting here at the table in front of me, you're going to come to the podium here to my right. The town will present its case first. They will show me any evidence that they want to enter into the record. Uh call any witnesses that
they intend to call. give me any verbal testimony that they would like me to hear. Once the town is finished with its presentation, you will be at that podium over there. You will be able to show me any documents you have with you. Uh give me any verbal testimony that you'd like me to hear, cross-examine any witnesses that the town has called. Uh and at the
end of hearing both sides, I will make a final ruling and you'll receive a copy of an order that reflects that ruling in the mail after the hearing. So, with that, keep in mind that all of your testimony this morning is given under oath. And I'll turn it to the town to call its first case. Good morning. First case is Thomas and
Sheila Waznjak. Address 14090 North Road, PCN number 414143701-429-000020. Case number CE 2547 code sections 30-7 imminent public health threat code of ordinance 30-14 nuisances
70-015 maintenance of swelles and coverts morning your honor for the record plants officer John Suarez presenting KCE2547 in reference to the property located at 14090 North Road the notice of hearing
notice violation was posted at the property on October 28th, 2025. Uh same copy was mailed certified to the property owner on file from the Palm Beach property appraiser on October 28, 2025 and it's
also here posted at town hall. The violations that exist are section 7015 swelles and covert maintenance 30-1 purpose and intent endangering public health uh 30-7 imminent public health threat. this it's an issue with a covert
that runs under a public dirt road of the covert's in disrepair. Uh for the record, the public works superintendent Craig lower and lead code officer Deanna Thomas and I met with the town contracted engineer on November 7, 2025 and discuss the violation and ways to
comply. We'd like to let Craig speak at this moment. He's a subject matter expert. >> All right, go ahead. Give me your name, sir. Craig Low, Town Locket Grove, public works superintendent. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Um, as arriving on this pipe that we
have seen, the pipe was collapsed, collapsing the roadway, making it a public safety issue for the town. Um, as I forget the date on the actual pictures that we have of them. They have all the pictures. Everything that the town, we had to actually go out and add material
to it. We dug the pipe up to check the pipe. The homeowner explained that saying it was from an FPNL line going through it. As we dug it up, the pipe was actually collapsing from rotting from old age. Um, every time, as far as we kept trying to dig it back, it just kept collapsing. Um, we had to cover it
back up because the road was collapsing itself. Um, give it a month down the road. Um, homeowner tried to pump water through the pipe, collapse the road completely. We had to come out at I think it was 9 10 o'clock at night and rebuild the
entire roadway that the whole road had collapsed. >> All right. And I I'll see pictures at some point, but just explain to me. So the culvert is the private property owner's culvert, but it goes under the town's road. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Why is the culvert going under the town's road? >> It's the drainage for their property
that drains out into the canal so they can actually have drainage >> and it's a permitted culvert. >> Probably not from back in the day. >> Okay. Cuz I mean the pipe was probably installed 40 years ago, I would guess, or 30 years. >> All right.
>> All right. Anything further, Mr. Lowour? >> No, ma'am. >> Mr. Suarez, were you going to continue or were you finished? >> Um, I'd like to see if there's a representative. I mean we are requesting well the town is requesting 10 days to
submit an application >> application >> right away a rightway permit >> okay >> and obtain all necessary permits and then upon that upon issuance or upon a submitt we're looking for 14
days after the submitt for issuance. All right. Let me see your case file if I may. And you're here for this case, ma'am. Okay. Can you come to the podium? >> Thank you. >> All right. Your name, ma'am.
>> Is that microphone on? Let's make sure that's so I can hear you. >> Thank you. Melissa Kleskkey here for the homeowners um who are Thomas is here and his son um Thomas is also here to give evidence today. >> All right. What was your last name?
>> Kluskkey. C H L U S K I first name A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A Melissa. Okay, let me look through these documents for a moment and then I'll have the code officer show them to you. Madam, you have your
>> You just joined. Who is that? I >> Okay, if you can hear me from the internet, the hearing has started, but I I think is that you, Miss Walpool Edwards? >> Yes. Good morning, Katie Edwards. >> Good morning. You're I think your last
case on the agenda, so we've started, but we're not quite to your case. So, I'll come back to you when it's when your case is called. >> Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Suarez, can you before I show the respondent these these uh this evidentiary case file, what are
these photographs? What am I looking at here? >> So, you're looking at the road where initially Craig went out, but the you'll see the covered in the road. It drains from his ditch into the canal, the drainage canal. So, you're looking at
the dirt coming out from the canal. You should be looking at the covert. I did not get pictures of when the road collapsed, but Craig was on scene when it collapsed when uh I believe the property owner tried to repair it himself.
>> So, this photograph that I'm looking at from October 28th, which is the date you sent your notice, what what is this? >> May I approach your honor? What? Let me ask him and then I'll I'll get your side. >> Well, that's from the other side of the canal. We're looking at the covert where all that dirt's coming from. The covert,
the dirt is coming from the covert and it's just coming out into the canal. On the other side is a property owner's property, but that's a shared covert under the road. >> Madam, >> so you go ahead. >> That is the roadway material that is that is washed into the canal.
>> That is all the roadway material that's from the roadway and the canal bank that is washed in. >> Okay. And you're you're telling me that that came out of a culvert. This sand that's on both sides, >> that's from the culvert itself has a hole in it and the every time it rains, the water's just flowing out of the
water out of the culvert and it's washing out the roadway from underneath. >> Okay. >> We could print out the ones from the the initial the big wash out and if you wanted to add them into the case or not. >> All right. Let me
have you, Mr. before I show uh the attorney the case file. Take a look at those. Take as much time as you need. I'm going to ask if you have any objection to the documents when you're done. So, take a look uh through there. >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah, you can point you can turn it off if you don't want to be picked up or you can point it away. That should be enough. This is not anything. [Music] The devil's skiing as part of her face
or something. Well, I guess they got a land [Music] of that is >> well Katie, >> we review it and we've reviewed it. Um, we object to some characterizations that they're using for it. Um,
>> we'll get into that. Any objection to the documents themselves? >> Um, the permanent application we have not reviewed before in the communications. So we'd like to further time to review what they're requesting and what's being asked so that my clients can come into cure. These documents weren't prepare provided to us. Everything you know the photos we
weren't received but we stipulate to them but the application and the communications um with regards to repairing and replacing we'd like further time to review that. >> That's fine. So just just as a matter of process so the only thing that the town is required by law to send you is a notice of violation and a notice of
hearing. So, it's not typical that you would receive the evidentiary case filed before the hearing. Mr. Sarz, can you grab that from her? I typically admit everything just so it's all on the record and and we can fight about it and you all can fight about it later, but um just so you understand, it's not customary to get everything in advance.
That's the purpose of today's hearing. >> So, with that, I'll admit uh the town's composite exhibit one over objection and I guess let me hear from you. I have some additional questions, but let me hear from you. Um, >> we have a packet too that you want to
bring this up to >> Sure. So, show it to the town first. I don't know if the town's attorney is here. Mr. Suarez, is the town's attorney present at this hearing? >> Is he intending to be here? >> Is he a >> I will initially, your honor, we're just, you know, we don't think this is a situation where any fines should be levied here
today or violations found. My client received 14 days notice only to compare to cure this situation. Um, you know, it is. Let's go back a little bit. Also, um, when Mr. Low, who I'd like to chance to talk to, um, >> let me let me have you hold on. Let me
ask I'm going to recess. Can you please go get the rest of the town staff who was here at the hearing? Mr. uh, Lowour needs to be in the room. He was a witness. >> Let me ask you just hold, please. Yes, sir. All right, ma'am. >> The attorney has some questions, I
think, for you, so you need to be here. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> So, >> go ahead, ma'am. It's our my client's contention that the city came out or town came out, excuse me, in May of 20 2025 and filled where u Mr. Lower
pointed to in the depiction and they put this fill there um for some kind of maintenance project and a digging was done. There's FPNL easements going there. So he kind of raised over that and said he had to dig out there in October for some, you know, there was no notice. When was he digging there? when
he said that he was digging because it's we have proof and evidence that we'd like to show the court that the town came in and the water district management came in and did some maintenance on the the canal swell and they covered the culvert themselves with their fill. Um when they did >> and when was that? >> That was May of 2025.
>> Okay. >> So they did that and I have some photo evidence in this in your packet. You could see where the covert in section one is visible here. Page one is a little bit blurry. Um, page two or section 1-2-1-3.
You can see our coverts there. >> Let me stop you there. Mr. Curts is now in the room. Mr. Curts, that's the evidentiary case file that the respondent is wanting me to enter into the record. So, if you could review that and let me know if you have any objection before I take a look at it. >> Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. >> So, in May of 2025, so that's what it
looked like before in the beginning. You can see the culvert there and then depiction on page two. And then if you flip a couple of page section three back in May, the city or town, pardon me, town of Black came in and dug something up there and put Phil there. Um, and
that was a world a road project. So, and they covered the culvert. Ever since then, there's been flooding on my client's property since the town covered his culvert that was proper working. Um, the statement that Mr. Lowour made that there was a hole in the culvert there that's there's no evidence of that. Um,
it was working fine up until this point. My clients repeatedly contacted them to say, "Hey, this is going to cause some backup when rainy season comes and rainy season comes and there's a problem." And my clients are on the phone in July calling Mr. Laauo or saying, you know, you we told you not to do that. Um,
here's a situation you've created here and you blocked up our culvert and we, you know, and then they've been trying to deal with it. rainy season comes and the fill that this town put in that area and covering the covert begins to slide away because it wasn't impacted correctly or you know just natural. But
you could tell this this is not a project. This is not covert. This is not dirt from a culvert. This is a public works um digging project where they dug and then we get into it a little bit further too, but they dug in this area in May and there's exposed power lines
there. So my client wasn't digging in the power lines. Um he was given 14 days to cure this issue. Months later after immediately contacting the city saying, "Hey, this is wrong." Um what's going on here? Um there was no need to dig up the
line on October 28th. Um that digging didn't occur then. The digging and the repair work that he's referring to happened in May and it wasn't as a result of a non-functioning covert. We don't know what the was there. It's probably because the FPL lines created some issues that run parallel there.
There is, you know, some clarity issues with what the um code enforcement is asking my clients to do after they caused the issue. Um and you know, there's no proof that the the covert wasn't working. Otherwise, you know, they're showing pictures from October,
you know, October 28th and we have the pictures from May showing that, you know, it was a world project and how it looked before. So, we have that and then we have those issues and then they're trying to say like they it was a public health, you know, they're glazing over the town vi code and what they need to
do in order to declare an imminent public threat. If that occurred back in May, there's no evidence of that in the court file either. Um what's clear is they're traveling under section 30.7 and that should have given to my client at least 20 days to get some community some clarification on what what they want to
do. Um and to present their evidence to them in a commun you know communicate with one another in a nice fashion regarding the the cure or the correction required. The town if the colar's broken now it's the town's fault for covering it up as they did in their in this
situation. Um there's no imminent public threat hasn't been established. Um the road falling out. My clients were the one c calling when they never attempted to fix it themselves. They attempted to cure the violation that they were given. Um and because if it says repair and
replace the covert, my client can testify that he was told and that's in our statement that to get the water moving through that canal. I mean, they're actually really asking my clients to dredge a canal um and to, you know, maintain canal
canal walls, not to just repair a culvert because their culvert can they can push it through when you push the rocks through the culvert that he's been probably permanent and was there put in by the city years ago. By the way, your honor, my client could hear to testify that. Um >> say that again that the town >> that's put it in back in the it was
permanent covert >> was put in by >> Can you can you give me your name sir? >> Second. >> Okay. Go ahead sir. >> Was put in by the drainage district 1967. My father paid for them to put it in.
>> So and it's been in good working repair up until the tone >> fine till that first picture they show. You see where the dirt's caving in on that picture. It's already sliding down the bank now of the day that they put it up. >> That's the May 20th walked it away. I haven't been out there and done
anything. >> And when you say the date they put it out there, what do you mean? They put >> the >> bill >> front pitch where that >> section >> where they dug the the gold up and they buried it. They buried it because they got into that panhel power line and
pulled it up out of the ground. >> Is that it's sitting there? and you can see it exposed. >> So before my clients can fix this, you know, they have to run 811 reports to dig in that area that we know have photographs of exposed um power lines
and that is in your documents. Section four. Thank you. Um section four, if you see this, there's a red line. That's an exposed power line that when they tried to get into compliance after speaking with, you know, they just some they realized what
happened. You know, they covered the covert, they dug up lines, no 811 calls had been made and surveys or tickets issued when they did that work back in May. We have evidence for that and that's in your packet. um failing to you know starting to dig up a property and a
culvert without dialing 811 and getting a you know working ticket isn't you know establishes negligence per se on this on behalf of the town. Um you cannot just go digging in easements and ask my client to correct the road
work um that they initiated with this initial project in May. We've asked for some public records on that. We're still waiting on them. We asked for an extension for this hearing. we were denied um even though we weren't given the full 20 days as per section 37 which
requires specific forms to be set out. There's deficiencies in the notice, sufficient legal deficiencies as well, your honor. Um, sorry, not a, you know, 30, section 32, 30-8 requires 20 days. They gave us 13 days
to cure. Their own packet shows, you know, a 15-day requirement and a 10-day requirement for permitting. Um, is what I've noticed. Um they're asking to replace the covert that they broke when you know if it's their covert if they did the damage in May and it's unclear
what you know there's this evidence that he's saying that he dug in you know had it dug as it was a hole in it there's no evidence of a hole there is only evidence you know of some issues maintaining the road and when they retain the road they covered the covert we asked more time they were extended
this is not a situation where my clients are in open violation there's no public nuisance been established they filled the road um due to the issues caused by the city uh town, pardon. Um we're just looking for clarity at some point on
this too, your honor. We would like to communicate with the city a little bit more. Town, pardon. Um we think they're use actually using the part of the code to say maintain a culvert free of trash and debris into, you know, maintaining the public road here. um after they
caused the situation and plugging it up. We also have issue, you know, the city um the per the nuisance issue what they're creating should have been decided by the town manager and affectuated by a certain forms dictated by code 30-8 that wasn't followed. Um,
we've got just a lot of, you know, procedural issues that we have with the notice. You know, deny our denying the extension, denying, you know, giving them only 13 days. >> When did you request an extension? >> And to whom?
>> Um, what email? >> It's in the packet. There's email. Um, it was finding the time. >> Okay. We requested by email. Client did by email. >> I see.
>> You said >> I saw the email from November 3rd there. >> November, you know. Um, and he went in my his son went in person to talk to them, try to work this out. you know, it's, you know, it sounds, it feels like one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing on the public
works with the code management issue here. Um, we'd also like clarity on how this code violation started. Um, who was the code, you know, who called um this out? Um, if it was just, you know, how the definition of a public imminent
public health threat was made, what was the, you know, evidence of that? um their undated photos with respect to the May sorry not undated the photos in October 28th August fail to reference their own work
completely shielding it and we're asking for more time no violation and more time to discuss whether this is even my client's responsibility due to their actions and digging without the 811 report back in May and back filling it in with the fill that they claim at the
hearing just now was a result of dirt from a culvert which is just kind of impossible. A dirt culvert doesn't flow through a dirt. I mean dirt doesn't flow through a culvert like that. It's water >> and it you know it misses what drainage does. >> Yeah.
>> It just doesn't make much >> this day. >> Okay. >> I had to pump >> stand up there just so the microphone picks you up. Sir, >> my culver is still plugged. I had I have pumped in the last four days over 300,000 gallons of water out of my backyard so that I can get to it.
>> And just so I'm clear, when we're all saying the word culvert, we mean this tiny little pipe. >> It's a that's inside my culvert. The drainage district put that a couple years ago. >> But you're talking this is what you're calling a culvert. Is that correct, sir? No. So what is this pipe? Yeah,
>> that is the pipe that they stood inside my culbert was the drainage district prior to it on the part of the town. >> All right, go back just so the microphone picks you up so I hear you. So, how does anybody know how big the culvert is that's under the road? >> Okay. And this pipe is not the culvert.
This is a pipe that goes into the culvert. >> They still in it and then buried it. >> It's been that way for 10, 15 years. >> Okay. I I do like to stipulate that the definition of covert is nowhere in contained in um the violation notice whether or not they're talking about a
pipe or the surrounding area. Um the FD FDOT has several definitions of culverts, none of which have been cited in the um notice violation. >> Okay. And let me while I have you have the floor, do you have any cross-examination of any of the town's witnesses? Do you have questions? You don't have to. I just want to give you
time to to >> I just um are you saying did when you dug the time period that we were first saying when you discovered that you were digging because their covert had a hole in it. What what evidence do you have that there at that what time did that occur?
>> I spoke to your client in person at his front gate. He had told me that there was a hole in the pipe himself. I told him that I was going to go down there. I looked for it. I saw the power lines down there. We went down there. We sat
there in hand with the our hands to remove the what dirt was in there. so we could see the pipe. And that's when we noticed the pipe was completely collapsing. I spoke to your client in person at his gate. >> What What date was that? >> It was This was prior to those pictures. I spoke to him in person, ma'am.
>> But But when did the what? But back in May, did you fill you covered the culvert? That's not the same time when you the the culvert was filled. >> No. >> Did you But you did cover the covert back in >> I I had to because the road was collapsing. >> When you cover the Is there statement any like statement of a public
emergency? Any notice? any field that >> we had to cover it back up or we were going to shut the road down completely. >> Was there any prior notification at that point for curing to my client? >> No, I it was prior to me speaking to him asking him, "Hey, can we look at the We want to look at the culbert. It's
collapsing the roadway and that we want to inspect the pipe." I removed the dirt that was in front of the hole so I can look through the pipe. And I couldn't see through the pipe cuz it was collapsed and it was rusted out from the inside out. But it it was collap but but that was after they put the dirt on it in May.
>> That was before I put dirt on it because it was collapsing. >> You're But well, I'd like to um I'd like to reserve on that and talk to my you know and have my clients testify that whether you know this conversation occurred. >> This was and this was after the
violation. You're saying >> that was before the violation. I spoke to him in person at his gate. Who would you which Mr. Wildman did you see? >> The gentleman right there standing. I spoke to him at his gate and then his son called me on a Saturday morning
after that [Music] >> after the mayor. >> Correct. >> But they've been communicating with Mr. Lawren because of the mayor that there was no need for that work at that point. You know what I mean? Saying this conversation occurred post the May work.
>> So just want to clarify that. We were notifying him that the road was collapsing. >> All right. So, >> all right. I want to on that a little bit. >> Go ahead. >> Me and him spoke. >> He wanted to replace the culbert. I
didn't want him replacing the culvert because I don't trust the way they do things. I've seen how they do things. And they're trying to claim my property out there. So, I'm I'm not letting them touch the culbert. I'll put it in if I need to. He was going, he wanted to take it, he
said he could take and dig it out and put a sleeve over it to make it extend out further into the canal. And I told him because they have over the years kept pushing the the road further and further out so that they have property there. They don't own but about two foot
of property, the rest of it. And I told him, if you dig down in there, you're going to have to dig back past the edge of the the pavement to be able to get to where because the pit has a long taper to it. It's cut off. It's got a long taper.
>> Okay. >> It's about that long. I told him they would have to dig back into the up underneath the road because that's how far they've pushed the road over into the canal. And if I told him if he did that, everything was going to collapse in
because you're going to be up under the road before you get to good pipe again. So, you know, a round pipe instead of being a tapered pipe. And that's when they he went ahead and did it anyway. I told him that power line run down that canal bank. He told us he told me and my son both that we were idiots. The power
line run down my fence line. I said, "No, it does not." >> No, we >> because I opted out of letting FPNL come across my property with that thing. That's why the power line is out on the dip. >> Okay. >> Everybody else has moved their utilities. The water line runs on the
other side, the north side of the canal. FPNL is right down the canal bank. They're the the town's the only ones that keeps trying to get into mine. >> So, this was all done. I was in in May when all this was done. I was working in
Indiana. I was not here. >> Okay. Okay. So, he didn't talk to me then, but we did talk the year before. And the part where they're saying that the road is is caving in because the water running through it, and I've never told him there was a hole in the culver,
the when the directional boring company come through for the FPNL to put the underground power in, they dug a hole in the canal bank to level their machine out and then they dug down through there. Well, that hole has been there for three years. They never filled it
back in. It was only this deep and it was about seven foot long and about that wide. >> Okay. >> And someone drove off in it. That's why I got pictures of it in there. It shows where the the bank has been pulled away. They drove off in it with a trailer and
drug. That's why the dirt and the grass and everything. That's why I took pictures of it. I went out there that morning and seen it. It wasn't my culbert. My culbert was working. And like I say, my culbert is still plugged to this to this moment. There's no way water is washing out in
there. I did have it open for a brief moment and the water on my side was 5 foot higher than the canal is. So when it did finally open up, it rushed through there and that's when it washed out all the dirt that they had already disturbed. >> Okay.
>> Um ma'am, >> let me ask them if they're finished and I'll come back to you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Just like point out a couple of things. The town of Los Aachi Groves has a program for replacing and repairing culverts that just so happened to occur right in May of 8 May 8th of 2025. Right around this time this work was happening
um that they're now saying that my client's responsible for in some fashion. Uh but they didn't they didn't put notice that their work was going to be on their road. There's some you other roads here. This is not in your packet. >> Do you want that? Yeah. Show it to Mr. Curts in the purple shirt there. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Do you want me to speak? Yeah, let me let her finish and then I'll come to you, sir. >> So, yeah. So, they did not sign up for this town. You know, they weren't provided notice of this work in May. And it's clear that it's a town road. You know, it's not repairing or gently, you know, keeping care of the culvert. It's,
you know, repairing a road, digging up power lines, you know, replacing um you know, digging into the canal bed to get this the what they're asking them to do. It's almost, you know, it's a public works project to be done out there with this. You know, it's not just simply putting a covert in >> and definitely need more time and it's
not a violation your honor at the very least. Um I give moment to respond if you >> I'll give you a moment at the uh or concluding remarks at the end but yeah go ahead go ahead Mr. Waznjak,
>> I would like to know how this all come about for the the violation because they told me that when we called up and tried to find out that we can't get any information from the town. Why was this cit the violation sent?
>> So, >> because they're saying that I have to unplug the culvert. I didn't bury it. I'll ask the town to respond. Was this town initiated code case or was this complaint driven? >> It was um through Craig Law where we opened the case. >> Okay. >> Governor has asked for getting into the
power lines. >> Keep it professional, sir, please. All right. Mr. Curts, let me go to you. Any objection to the respondents exhibits being entered into the record? >> As I understand, As I understand what's contained
here in is there is a notice of violation and a notice of hearing that was supplied to them by the town. Um there is a homeowner's declaration of facts in response to a notice of violation.
Um it is uh not sworn to but it is essentially their statement. >> It is sworn they're declar it's under penalty of perjury and it's a declaration is sworn to and if there's any deficiency there will state it
>> and um and they're and so they're available for cross-examination. the the two folks that Thomas M. Waznjak and Sheila M. Waznjak, they both signed and they're both
available for cross-examination. Is that correct? >> Just Mr. Wak. >> Just Mr. Waznjak. Okay. >> Um, and then they've got the statement of law and argument. Um, they have a number of
emails. It looks like um and then they have supplied packages of photographs. Is that correct? >> Yes. And then the depictions in the photographs with um typing to identify the photos attached to that are um blown
up copies so that they could be more legible. >> Okay. And all all of these pictures were taken by your clients and they would be subject to to examination if we want to go that route. Just uh understanding what's what's
there. Um I do not have objection to that coming into the record. Um reserve the right to examine uh them with respect to it. One of the things that I'm hearing um
from the respondents uh council, it sounded to me like uh they were requesting a continuence. Basically, >> it they submitted a document that that suggests that they requested a continuence on November 3rd, which there they've indicated to me was denied by
the town. >> And and as I understand it, there's a continuing request for a continuence with respect to this matter. Is that >> Yes. Um, I do not think that the town has an
objection to continuing this matter. Um, if that'll lend clarity to everyone, >> we'd like at least 60 days if there, your honor, I don't want to come back and have like little time to go over this and if we can really work that out, I'd love to talk with Mr. Curts if that's possible.
>> It Yeah. So, let me just make sure I understand what what the parties are asking. Let's let's make sure the record is clear when when we're speaking about a continuence. Are we is the town amendable to a continuence just strictly setting this for violation hearing in whatever number of days or is the town seeking a finding a violation today?
>> Um I think we would be okay with a continuence of the the hearing itself. My understanding is um and I stand to be corrected by Mr. hour uh that the pipe is currently
blocked. Um and so it is no longer um posing a danger of collapse since that apparently has already occurred. Um and it is in a stabilized situation at this point in time. Is that correct, Mr. Lau?
>> Correct. We have pictures of >> where the pipe is completely comp collapsed and everything. >> Yeah. And and so the uh the underlying situation is um controlled at the at the moment. Um and I don't think we have any
objection to continuing this uh hearing for a 30 to a 60-day period. >> All right. And Mr. Are those photos that you are intending? >> Those are the ones I was telling I was going to print to bring to you. >> Okay. So, show those. >> Yes. Show them to the uh respondents council first.
>> These photos are on November 6th at 9:30 at night. >> Are they marked on the photographs? >> Yes, ma'am. I haven't tapped everything. >> Show them to the respondents council and then we'll ask her if she has any objection and they'll be entered into the case file as part of the town's exhibit.
>> I'd like to explain them. >> Okay. I'll give you a moment to do that. Sure. You can keep those if you guys need more. Yep. Unless she wants to add them to that. >> They need to be added to the case file. Yeah. So, we can they can get you copies after this hearing, but they can get you copies. Correct.
>> Yes. Thank you. How many do you have there? So, I make sure I pronounce it correctly. >> 17. Yeah. There's 17 photos in this. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Please. Any objection to these photos being added? >> No. >> All right. So, with that, let's do the
easy part. I'm going to uh add to the town's evidentiary case file which is composite exhibit one. These additional 17 photographs which appear all to be dated November 6, 2025. Five. And I'll ask the town uh to at some
point after this hearing get these stuck into the case file so they don't disappear between now and the next hearing date. Yes, you're on. >> But I'll add those and then while I have uh the floor again, I will admit uh without objection respondents composite exhibit R2. I'm going to mark that and I
would ask the town to leave this in this uh case file so that every if to the extent this comes back to me and whatever hearing date that is uh that all of this comes back with it. And Mr. Low, you wanted to provide some additional testimony on those photographs. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. as as the photos you see in
front of you. We received a phone call at 8:30 at night from Palm Beach County EOC that they received a phone call from the Wazniaak property saying that they were pumping underneath the roadway to pump through the pipe and they blew the
roadway out. So the first picture that was presented there is a 15 ft hole blowout underneath the roadway. We as we responded, we came to the site at 9:30 at night, brought out material, looked down inside, and seen that we were going
to either close the complete road down for the night or we had to repair it on the spot. >> Okay. >> So, everything you see there happened that day on November 6th. >> All right. So, given I I appreciate that additional testimony. I expect I'll hear
more of that at the next hearing if if uh if the matter proceeds then. So 60 days as I look at my calendar would would put this on the February 2nd. That's the Monday hearing. Is that amendable to the town? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> My clients are at my nearly out of town.
He's out of town. He works six months out. But can he work on getting your settle? Would somebody be authorized to testify in his absence or can he appear by Zoom? You would have an objection to appearance by Zoom. I travel for work. >> That that's fine. So, the only thing I
would ask uh just for council's knowledge is appearance by Zoom is a little bit difficult in terms of showing evidence back and forth, right? So, uh I'm going to ask you to stipulate. If you're going to be here at that hearing, that's great. So, you can see any any uh physical documents that we need to that need to be presented and that I need to
see. Um but that's the only risk with appearing by Zoom. But if the town's okay with it, I'm fine with it. What? >> Okay. Yes, your name. >> Okay, great. And you're otherwise okay, ma'am? Yourself on the second
address something that Mr. Lowry just just said on the calling of the the sheriff's department calling me. >> Go ahead. >> We call I called him at 7:00 that night and told him that the road had caved in. I didn't pump water through the the
pipe. I shoved another pipe through it and when it opened up the five foot of water on this side washed out that side. >> Okay. >> He complained because I called him at 7 o'clock at night. He says, "Are you really calling me at 7 o'clock at night for this?" I said, "Yeah, I don't want
someone driving off in the canal." >> All right. I >> He didn't show up for two hours, so we called the sheriff's department and had them come and shut the shut the road down or stay out there until someone got there to fix out there. >> And then, like you said, about 9:45 they
showed up. >> Okay. >> But that wasn't washed out like that. They've done follow up with the back. Can you see? >> I hear what you're saying, but sir, I would caution you that the town is amendable to continuing this. It may be in everybody's best interest to have a
discussion outside of this process. Um, so I just want to make sure that's where I'm headed. If you want to continue, we can do that, but I I think there's should be some additional conversations between the parties. You're good on the second, ma'am, of February. >> I'm sorry. My can't get Yes. Oh, you can hear. >> All right.
So with that, all I need to do is make a finding of service for today's hearing. I've entered both sides evidentiary case files. Again, I'll ask the town bring back this full uh case file on February 2nd to the extent there is a hearing. But for the record, in case C25-47,
I will uh having entered the town's composite exhibit and the respondent's composite exhibit, I'll find that the town had good service for today's hearing via an affidavit of service as well as USPS delivery confirmation on the certified mail. So with that, I will
strictly reset this uh for violation hearing on February 2nd, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. and we will deal with the merits uh at that time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Notice, your honor. >> You'll get an order uh granting the
continuence that I'll sign this afternoon and you'll get that via certified mail with the February 2nd hearing date. >> Right. I I believe I have my email on there for service. If you leave a card with the town, they typically will give you additional notice. But the formal notice you're here, so you have actual service on that, but you'll get the certified mail
as well. But if you leave a card, I'm I typically they're happy to email you. >> Next case. >> Next case. Thank you. >> PBP Investment LLC. Address 392F Road 4141431701
905005. Case number C2540 code section ULDC 20-0110 B2 general provisions fences honor for the record compliance officer John Suarez presented KC 2540 in reference to the property located at
392F road. The notice of hearing notice of violation was posted at the property at 392F road on October 16th 2025. Uh copy was mailed via certified mail on the same day, October 16, 2025, and a copy was posted at town hall. This is a
vacant land on 4.98 acres. There is a fence that surrounds the property. A section of the fence is in disrepair next to F Road and has fallen over. We have not made contact with the property owner. The property did have a for sale sign at the time we posted the property.
I called the realtor at the time and left a message. I did not receive a call back. Um, and for the record, your honor, um, the same fence because it it surrounds a, you know, a pretty large property, a case was opened back in August 1st, 2025
for another section that had fallen and they repaired it within 14 days, but no contact was made. >> So, there's I mean, the fence is falling in disrepair in different sections because of wood rot. At this time, we are requesting that the property owner repair or remove the fence within 14
days by December 15, 2025, or we request a daily fine of $150 a day that the violation continues to exist. Additionally, is recommended that the administration costs incurred in the amount of $2345
be assessed and ordered to be paid to the town of Lockaji Groves. And I can submit the full case uh file for evidence. Is the respondent present for this case? No. >> All right. For the record, the
respondent is not present in case 2540. >> Thank you. In the prior case you referenced, did that make it to hearing or no? Okay. So, there's no violation, no fine running. >> No. So then the section you cited, are there animals behind the fence?
>> No, there are no animals at the but it is a wooden fence and that's with animals. >> Is the fence required to be there? It's not required but it is a fence. >> So what's what's compliance? Remove the
>> remove or repair the suction. Now it's laying long 20 to 30 foot section. >> So they could just pick up those boards. There's no requirement that there be a continuous fence unless there's animals. Is that accurate? >> Would be accurate.
>> Okay. I guess my issue is the code the code section you've cited it it says animals shall be kept within a fence to prevent the animals from accessing streets or adjacent properties. It shall be the responsibility of each animal owner to ensure that the fence is maintained in a state of good repair and that the animal is confined to the property. If there are no animals on the property, how is
this code section applicable? >> Ma'am, at times there was horses on this property. There's not horses on it right now. >> Were Were there animals at the time the violation was written? >> There's not right now, but there has been animals on this property. That's what only thing we're concerned of. But they do put them back on. We don't want
them just coming straight into the roadway. >> How recently have there been animals there? >> They come in seasonal with the horses. >> Okay. So, in the future, I would site if if you were going to use this section, I would cite some other section of the
town code that applies more generally to fences for cases like this. in the future if if the testimony is that there are animals that that have been recently on this property, I I'll um find this violation, but in the future site site another more general
provision that that deals with just fences. And then you're going to you asking for compliance by December 15th, but you've had no communication with the respondent. Do you do you typically post the orders that I sign to the property?
>> I'll I'll give you the December 15th as long as you as long as you post the order to the property just to make sure that they get it because certified mail takes a week to get. Um so as long as you're doing that, that's fine. Anything further in this case? >> Nothing further. >> All right. In case 25-40, I'll enter the
town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the uh notice documents in the case file which include both an affidavit of service and USPS delivery confirmation on the certified mail that the town had good service for
today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of uh both Mr. Suarez and Mr. flower that the respondents in violation of section 20-010 B2 and I'll require respondent to comply
with that code section on or before December 15th or $150 per day fine will be assessed in the event of non-compliance. I'll set this matter for find assessment hearing on January 5th,
2026. And because I found respondent in violation, I will assess the town's administrative cost for today's hearing in the amount of 23405 payable within 30 days. >> All right. Next one. >> Next case. Safar Irevocable Trust 15447
San Diego Drive 4141-4317012070460 case number 25-42 code section ULDC05 040 permits required Florida building code 105.1 building codes required 42 property located. The notice hearing was uh posted at
15447 San Diego October 1st. a copy of the ordering violation and violation was now certified on the same date October and according to the US postal website a certified letter was delivered
at the property's own address based on property the violations that exist is there was a carport and garage that was converted into a living corners without the necessary funds now the town has been working with the property owner for at
least from September 27, 2024 where they've been in contact with building official Jack was assisting them to help resolve the violation. Looks like they were trying
but it's been a while. At this time, we are requesting that he obtain obtain a permit within 30 days or incur a daily fine of $250. District recommended that cost
beholder evidence. >> All right. All right. Your name, sir? >> My name is Zia Shoken. >> Spell spell your first and last name. >> Zia. >> Mhm. >> First name is S H A U K A T.
>> And you're the trustee? >> What's your relation to the trust? >> Uh, you know, I'm the I'm the realtor for the for the property. >> You're the realtor? >> Yeah. >> Does the owner know that you're here today? >> No.
The owner is not here. >> No. Does he know you're here on his Okay. Very good. >> Very good. So this respondent, let me ask the code officer. This respondent's name is familiar. I know I have signed previous orders. There have been previous cases. Has this issue come to me before? Is
there is there a fine running already on this? >> So there's a history, your honor. Um it used to be a single family house and yes, there's fines running but not they divided a parcel. So on this particular
PCN number there is not a finding running um there's a fine running for old electrical board that was uh installed without a permit and this is for the garage console that was converted used to be a single family with a garage
carport. They divided a parcel trying to proper. >> Does this have a different address? >> No, this has a new address. Okay, >> because that's carport sounds awfully familiar to me. >> But is it the same? I mean, did I hear
about a carport conversion on the prayer case? because I can't issue another order on the same violation. That's what I'm concerned about. So, I know it's a new PCN and I know the addresses have been split, but if it was the same exact violation, if this has been going on for over a year,
your honor, what I believe occurred was um there was a carport that was built on uh the property essentially when it was two refined lots
and it was subsequently converted into a residential structure. Um that didn't get noticed for a long time. Few years ago um there was violation found with respect to carrying
um and the the cure was to get permits. That then led to a situation in which there was question as to whether or not there was a legal subdivision of the um
the property because we couldn't have uh two primary residences on one uh one property ultimately. So first case that came forward was the um
the illegal conversion of the carport to a residential structure. Um the solution was to get a permit. When they came in for a permit um they were denied the permit because of the uh fact that it would have been a second
residential structure on the same lot. Ultimately that gets resolved um with uh the town agreed to be bound by a legalation I guess by Palm Beach County that
constituted two lots at that point in time. Um they were able to get the permit. Um, and I do not believe that they have applied for the permit on the
cardboard at this time. >> So, what was the permit that was issued? What was that permit for? >> The there was there hasn't been a permit that was issued. Um, there
there are there are uh now two properties that are adjacent to each other. One of them has a carport on it. Um, it because it is a separate lot. It could >> be a residential unit. Um and uh but
there is a there is I believe um an outstanding code violation with regard to uh the necessity of getting a permit for that
for that carport. We are coming coming back to a bang here this morning on Monday. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And uh I do not the the solution is either get a permit or knock it down. I
need permit for demolition. But really, this is just a paperwork problem, right? Is that's what I'm hearing you say. They applied for a permit. You could town couldn't issue them a permit because it was a residential. Now they've divided the property. So if he reapplies, he can get the permit. >> Okay.
But for some reason they have not applied for permits. My understand >> is that that's as of today no permits have been applied for. >> None been applied for. >> Okay. >> There have been promises.
>> Okay. All right. So go ahead. Um Mr. Shakat, is that correct? Go ahead. Okay. uh we had the property split in May 2024. >> Okay.
>> And after that a lot of things were going on and we had applied for permit and paid the fee too. >> I have the receipt right there. >> Okay. >> All the permits whatever were needed. >> Okay. >> But somehow there was a problem with the
septic tank. They wanted a new septic tank. the health department for a new subject and a new brain lines. >> Okay, >> that took a lot of time and finally it has been we have already paid them.
We have already paid them and we already submitted the papers online on 24th. All the papers whatever were required >> on the 24th of what of November. >> November. So last week. Okay. Would you like a water, sir?
>> All right, Mr. Suarez, can you show him the case file? I have no >> Yeah. >> You want that entered into the record? Can the town keep that? >> It was page old, but yeah, you can actually I can make a copy there. >> Is that from last week's submitt? No,
>> that's the old one, right? >> Four. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But after that, we submitted that after that there was a um long process of splitting the property. >> Mhm. >> So that took time. >> Took time. Yeah. Okay.
>> All right. So, Mr. Sarz, if you can get my case, your excuse me, the town's case filed back so I can see that. And then if I need to call All right. And there's no objection to the receipt or the >> No objection. >> Can you make a copy of this? So he needs to take that back.
>> All right. So sir, you didn't have any objection to this case file being entered. >> No, I just need to say that we we since we already submitted all the papers, we just need maybe 90 days to complete everything. We already paid the uh permit fees and everything. So we can
complete the thing and they can do the reinspection. And this is just a standard building permit. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Conversion. >> But that's all this is is a building permit. Okay. So
>> he's asking for 90 days and I'm not sure that unless there's something strange going on why it would take that long. >> Uh it has to put the brain lines actually the main time will be taken by the health department. They have to put
a new they already applied for uh whatever they're doing. We already have a contract with the septics counseling whatever they are doing. But that's what they're saying that will take at least 3 months. It sounds like he's talking about
work. What we're requesting at this point is an application for a permit for current work. They the application that you showed which I think the dates back to.
My understanding is that that um application has lapsed >> um because was e not issued or not pursued. >> No. Okay. >> And there my understanding is there is
no current application for a building permit >> um in our system. >> Well, he's I think he heard I think I heard him say you applied on last Wednesday. Is that correct? Yes. Electronically, >> since we had applied, we have submitted all the papers online and this was
delayed because of the split. It took very little. >> No, I understand that. I understand that. >> Yeah. You know, we already paid more than like more than $3,000 for this thing, but it it was it was taking time because of the split. >> But when you're talking about I think what I'm trying to understand is when
you're talking about drainage lines, what are you talking about with the health department? You're talking about the the restroom facilities, so like sanitary, septic, sewer connection. Is that >> Yeah. You're talking you you continue to tell me about drainage lines and the health department. What does that have to do with >> other than draining lines? If if we have
like maybe uh for the subject time we need maybe 90 days for inside we can maybe 60 days we can do the complete the work >> but and just so you understand the amount of time that I'm going to give
you is just to get the permit issued not to complete the work on once you get the permit issued you have what you have under state law to do the work and get the inspections done. >> Okay. Do we have to pay it again? >> That's a question for the town. I don't know. >> Yes, >> but we already paid it one time.
>> The under the building code, you have 180 days in which to get an inspection done to keep the permit valid. That did not occur. So, the permit is deemed no longer valid. So, you need to resubmit
the actual building permit. >> But the thing was under litigation. It was under the split. So that's why we couldn't do the thing. You were not allowing us to do the thing because it was under split and once that that thing is done now we are ready to do it.
>> That is by state statute that we must follow >> and that's just so you know that's a that's not what's before me this morning. Right. So all that I can worry about is whether or not you needed a permit and and how much time I'm going to give you to get the permit. The fees that you have to pay you need to deal
with the town outside of this hearing process. That's not I don't make a determination as it relates to fees. >> Is the septic system required for the town to sign off on the building permit? >> No. >> No. Okay.
>> Ma'am, I just checked with our permitting department. Nothing has been submitted in our system. So, if he has a receipt, we would like to see it because nothing has been submitted as of 11:24. >> Okay.
>> So, do you hear what she's saying? She's saying whoever told you that they applied for the permit, what she's telling you is that the town doesn't have any record of a submitt. >> They submitted all the this thing, all these papers, whatever were required for the for the permit. >> But she's telling you that the town
doesn't have any record of that. So, whoever, >> right, I just want to make sure you understand. Whoever told you that they submitted to the town, they did not. >> Okay. I definitely did. >> Well, double check with him because what she's saying is she just went back and checked and and they don't have any record in their system. So, you need I'm going to give you more time today
anyways, but don't assume that they have it and they're working on it because what they're telling you is that they don't have anything. >> Okay. >> All right. Record, your honor, I did speak with a living official this morning and he says yes, he's been guiding him for over a
year now. Well over a year. should be able to obtain a permit within 30 days. It's time to be gracious with that. >> The last time that our building official, Jack Thomasick, denied the the
pre the application, there were denials made in July of 2022. Then all MEPs were denied in January of 2023. And most recently, when Jack was the became the building official here, he denied it in
September of 2024 and nothing has been done since >> according to what the permitting department has informed me. >> Okay. All right. Anything further, Mr. Shakott? >> No. >> All right.
So, it's I mean, I'm going to give you 30 days, but you need to get on it. You need to get on it with your contractor. This has been going on for over three years now. I understand you had a fight on this on the lot split. That should not have anything to do with this. Now, getting a permit within 30 days should be no problem. But, make sure you're diligent with your contractor. Um, I'm
I'm confident you can get this done, but if if your contractor is telling you he submitted it and he didn't, you need to be diligent with him because he may not be telling you the whole story. So, um, I'll give you the 30 days just to make sure you have enough time, but I would encourage you to get on your contractor today, okay? >> Uh, and and get this get this done
because this has been lingering. I remember these cases from years ago. Uh, so this has been going on for a long time. >> All right. Anything further from the town? All right. In case uh C25-42, I'll enter the town's uh evidentiary
case files composite exhibit one. Without objection, I'll enter the respondents exhibit as uh R2, which is the sales receipt without objection uh by the town.
I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file, which include both an affidavit of service and a USPS delivery confirmation that the town had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of the town that the respondents in
violation of section 05-040 and section 105.1 of the Florida building code for the uh work that was done without the required permitance require the respondent to comply with that code section on or before
let's see and Mr. as far as in the future if you can give me dates instead of the 30 days so that they can reconcile with the hearing dates that would be helpful. Thank you. Just so we so the hearing is on. So I'll require the SP to comply by January 2nd,
2026 or $250 fine will be assessed for each day that the violation uh continues to exist. If the respondent does not comply by January 2nd, this matter will be set for fine assessment hearing on January 5th, 2026.
And because I have found uh the respondent in violation of listed code sections, I'll assess the town's administrative costs in the amount of 23405 uh for today's hearing payable within 30 days. So, you get an order that reflects that. You need to have the permit issued before January 2nd. Okay. >> All right. Best of luck to you, sir.
Thank you. >> Next case. Buckpasser LLC 14872 Grubber Lane 4141-4317013050010. Case number 255000004. Code section 175-70. General
175-11. Permits required. ULDC 175-240 violations >> and I think on the permits you meant 175-110. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Going to s John presents case 50500472
copy the notice of hearing certified on November 7, 2025 as well posted to the property on the same dates also hosted at town hall same days. Um this property was initially cited on May 13, 2025
for the uh following violations section 175 110 175 170 175 FDA permit required. Um, this all started on December 18, 2025,
I'm sorry, 2024 for public works superintendent very large witness land clearing on the property outside the scope of the legislation exemption. You also witnessed the filling of a drainage stitch in the rear of the property. I have been in contact as
well. stated that she was submitting for an FBA permit and that she's currently working on an output. It has not been issued. Uh the town's request >> was that recent I'm sorry to interrupt you. Was that recent communication?
>> Yes, it's been ongoing. >> Okay. But recently you've talked to >> Okay. >> As recent as last >> Okay. So, the town is requesting um 30 days for an approved application. And then
from that date 60 days for um for the approval of um the FDA >> I don't I'm not sure I followed that. >> I'm sorry. Submittal in 30 days and then
um in 60 days on issuance. >> Issuance. Okay. And if the plan is $250 a day for all three violations, the town is also requesting administration cost amount of $234 5 cents to be assessed in order to be
paid on the website. As of right now, I believe she did submit an application. We handed back the reviews the contract engineer and now her contractor Jupiter Civil is has reviews at this time, but we have
not heard that. >> And when did when did they apply >> and when did the town issue comments? >> Is somebody present for that case to the podium? I just spoke to our permitting technician this morning regarding this
case and it has been at least 90 days since the review but I don't have the exact date you can find the exact date but okay do you have your case file All right. Your names, please. >> Bianca Bald. >> Tim D. Young.
>> Let's spell your last name, Bianca, for me. B E R K O L D. >> And your name, sir? Was >> uh Tim D. Young. D E Y O U N G. >> And what's your relations to the LLC?
You're the owners. >> I am. Yeah. >> You're the owner. Okay. All right. Let me look at this real quick and then I'll have him show it to you. So this old notice of violation, Mr. Suarez, did this ever get to a hearing? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So there's no orders, no nothing? >> No. >> Okay. Do you have newer photos, Mr. Suarez, from when you sent the new notice? >> Uh, newer photos of the the D being filled in or the land? >> Yeah. Does it still look like this today?
>> I have photos if you like. >> Okay. photos were taken by Mr. >> but in 2024, right? >> Okay. All right. Well, we can get to that. Um, Mr. Charz, can you show the respondent the case file, please?
Thank you. and take a look through that at the end. I think you've heard me say to the other people, I'm going to ask if you have any objection to those documents, but take as much time as you need to review. This case did open up as a complaint. Because the drainage that was filled was
affecting the system because now the it affected the drainage with the water not being not passing through to the proper Wait for me.
Any objection to that case file being entered? >> No. >> Okay. You can give it to Mr. Suarez. Thank you. All right. So, they're telling me that you need an FDA permit. It sounds like you've been in the process. Go ahead and tell me your side. >> Um, can I go way back um to the
beginning if I may? Okay. So, this all makes sense. >> Sure. >> So, Guber, there isn't any canals or drainage for the for the properties. And so, the way this is and I have a map for you so it makes maybe a little bit more
sense so you can see if I can show it to you. >> Sure. Show Let's go ahead and do that first. Let's get all the documents that you have that you want me to look at. Give them to Mr. Suarez and he'll give them to the town's attorney to look at before I look at them. And then you can kind of walk me through
after Mr. has looked at everything. All right. Can I see those? And can I also see your case file back, please? >> Thank you. Just >> and can the town keep these papers? Sure. These copies. All right. So, I'll
mark those as ex composite exhibit R2. And I'll admit uh both the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection and respondents exhibit composite R2 also without objection. Go ahead ma'am. >> So on the aerial map wouldn't mind
having a look at that. >> Yep. >> The blue is the property in question. >> Um so now you can see if you count between C and D road we're the closer to C road, right? And there what they call
is a drainage ditch um in the back of the property that is supposed to drain the properties. Now that did used to happen until our neighbor to the west of us exactly next
to us she filled out an FDA and did all her due diligence and subsequently filled in her drainage ditch. So what that meant for us is no more draining. >> But also what's happening is the
neighbor to the south that is butdding up to my neighbor on the west and me. So we have half and half of her property, right? >> That entire property now drains into our
property. And when I say flooding us, flooding the house. And so we went and by the statue, Florida statue, we are allowed to keep the neighbor from flooding us. Um, and
the neighbor to our east, Mike, you can see that so-called drainage ditch. It's not nothing is maintained. None nothing is draining. And Mike now has the same issue since, and this is since I had had
a conversation with Mike. Um, when we were flooding, Mike is the the neighbor to the east, I'm sorry, to our east. Um, because we were flooding so badly and he said, "Well, this started happening ever since our neighbor to the west has
filled in that so-called drainage ditch, and now nothing is the water is not going anywhere." I drove five on the D road on D road and I took a picture. This is this picture here. This is what
is nothing. It's not draining. So we I had to protect our property and keep the neighbor from flooding us by filling in that drainage ditch. Now I am not draining into any of our neighbors right now. We're containing our water on our
property. So, we're not draining into um the east, the west, nowhere, but we are also now not flooding anymore because the neighbors aren't draining into us. Now, I had called Jeff um and presented
this very issue. >> Who? >> Right. >> Okay. Okay. um and had a meeting with him and I asked I called and I had asked to meet with him because it was my understanding that I don't need by the Florida statue I am allowed to keep my
neighbor from flooding me and if I'm not flooding them I'm allowed to protect myself and I said to him I said I don't think I need an FDA for this and this is where it gets really hairy for me um
Jeff said he did not say I don't need an FDA But he did say to me, I will look into this and especially what happened with the neighbor to the west that eliminated her drainage ditch and now there is no drainage for us. But we are serving as drainage for our other
neighbors, especially the one to the west because there is no drainage for her. Uh sorry to the um to the to the south. There's no drainage for her. It just all gushed into us. And because that drainage ditch was not functional
anymore because the neighborhood of West blocked it off, this was the whole problem. And literally our house flooded. So I had I spoke with Jeff and I said, "I don't think I need an FDA for what I did." And he said to me, he will
get back to me. This was in February 20 25 this year. And instead of getting back to me, they slapped me with a code violation. This I do not think this this was never I was never uncompliant, I
wasn't not communicating. I was doing the opposite. I was doing everything I thought needed to be done. And I got feedback from Jeff in that meeting I had with him. He said to me, "I will look into all of this and get back to you."
all he had to do is get back to me and I would have filled out what needed to be filled out and applied for and they chose not to do that and in May they give me a code violation without any other communication which would have
been so easy. So my question is why on top of everything else is being town resources wasted where it does it need to be wasted and is it just so I'm having to pay fines? This isn't right in my opinion because
I'm not a non-complying resident. I'm trying to do this right and I am in communication. So why did I get a code violation in the first place? So let I'll give him an opportunity to respond in a second. Let me ask you a couple of questions. So the the pictures that that you looked at that are in the town's case file, it's very clear that you did
something on your property, right? So what what did you do to eliminate the flooding? You raised the elevation of your land. Is that what you did? >> No. >> Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no. What did you do? So it was all wooded. Okay. >> Right. And so for us to even get any access to that drainage ditch, I mean, I wanted to clear that anyway. I had an a
exemption for the back three three acres. So I cleared that and then we moved the dirt around. There was two loads that came in, but I got a I have that in an email which I did not print out, which I can get to you from um um
the town manager allowing me to bring in four loads. I only brought we only brought two. Um, but I did not raise the elevation. I did not bring in a bunch of Phil to raise that. I did not do that. And this is was also my argument. Not
argument, but my my point with Jeff where I'm like, I just don't think that. >> Well, let's we'll get to that, but let me understand what you did. So So somebody from the town told you you could bring in four loads of fill. Is that right? >> Yes. The town manager. >> Okay. And where did you put the fill in the in the
>> use it to No, I actually used it to Well, a little bit went in the back, but um I use it to fill in holes from the trees and things like that from from clearing um from the roots to make it safe for the horses. But it was
literally just us moving the dirt um from from the clearing that allowed us to to eliminate the ditch and keep our neighbor from flooding us. >> So that's what you did. You eliminated the ditch. You got rid of the ditch along the back of your property. Okay.
>> Yes. Because I could not stop the neighbor from from flooding us otherwise. It was right on the on the fence line and there was no way for me to to stop her from flooding me. >> All right. But the f I guess my my
curiosity is the photos show much more than just your your disturbance of the ditch area. It looks like you disturbed almost 75% of your property. Is that not accurate? >> No, I cleared it. >> Right. And there dirt moved around on it though, too. So, not just trees down,
but you you changed the topography of the majority of >> I mean, they they took out the trees and of course with that with the roots and everything else, it it you know, it's that the the dirt gets >> and all the equipment running around on the property removing the trees. All
they did was grade >> just make it flat afterward. Make it flat and and for the horses, you know, I mean, just make it flat again because I can't leave it looked like the moon after they were done taking the trees because they literally uprooted the trees. They took the whole tree out and
it leaves a big hole. So, yes, that looks messy, of course. Okay. All right. Let me have uh Mr. Curts, let me have you respond to her statements. >> Well, maybe if you're going to ask me about testimony, I'd better be sworn in.
>> Well, you're you're the town's attorney, so I'll swear you in if you want, but >> I'm fine. >> This goes back to a time frame where town's attorney. >> Okay, then >> go ahead and get sworn then. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Go ahead.
um my recollection of meeting on on this and I don't have the exact date was there were a number of folks involved in in the meeting at that point in time uh there were issues with removal
permit there's an issue of putting pile and some other things into U >> let me I don't mean to interrupt you. Can you give him the microphone just so the recording picks him up please? Thank
you. >> So the the meeting that took place with when I was the project coordinator um it involved several people on behalf of the the town my recollection was Richard Gant was there. Um I think uh code
enforcement staff was there. I think Craig might Craig Lowour might have been there as well. Um and I think um Jim Clay was there >> and the arburst >> um and the issues that were discussed at
that time were the clearing of the land without a vegetative permit. Um there was some materials that were being placed into um the pond that was improper fill. Um
and then there was the need for the um the FDA because of the clearing that had gone on. >> Well, let me stop you there for a second. Was there a pond? >> No pond. >> No pond. Just a >> No pond. >> Yeah, there was no pond.
>> Yeah, there was no pond on the property. It's where they had dug and filled in. >> Okay. >> To create dirt. >> I'm sorry. >> It's where they had dug in the middle of the property and filled it in with other materials. that there was yes it was other material
tile to create more material more dirt for grading. >> Um and uh there was uh there was a determination at that meeting that they did need to apply for an FDA. There was
discussion of the historical um drainage um and how that affected their property. Um that was a matter that um Mr. Galant would have been looking into um and if there was uh
later communication um between Miss Burl and and myself um I apologize if I did not get back to you. I'm not stating one way or another as to what I did, but there was always a requirement that they apply for the FDA. It is my
understanding that they in fact have submitted an application for an FDA. Um but the the issue here today is that they're not moving forward with respect to um the FDA and um it may not be their
fault. It may be an issue with the engineer that they have um retained. Um but there are uh outstanding comments that have not been responded to. Um and so we're in a holding pattern and um
wish an order directing them to to move forward. At present um I do not believe there are any fines running against them with respect to to this. Um uh and uh
there you will you will not be asked to impose fines to today. It's a finding of um the violation and there would be a um time given by the special magistrate to complete the FDA process before they
would find uh they would face a situation in which fines might be imposed. And is there anything else you'd like to add with her uh with regard to her statement that she's allowed under state law to do what she did to protect her
property from flooding? That that I have not heard uh at any of these hearings. So I would be curious. >> Um I am not familiar with uh the state statute that she is referring to. Um
there has never been a position with respect to this property that they did not require the FDA. My understanding is that there is an application for the FDA um that has been submitted but it is not
being moved forward at this point in time for whatever reason. >> M if I may go ahead. Um so Mr. Curs is right with everything he said except
we had that meeting with all several gentlemen and and this is where this is where my real problem lies with the situation is that I then after this meeting
did some research and contacted Jeff and asked for a meeting and I sat down with him and explained what I explained to do about the neighbor flooding me, the neighbor to the west having eliminated
her drainage ditch so we can't drain anymore and we're not draining and our property and house is being flooded and this is why I did what I did. And he said to me, he will get back to me because I said I truly do not believe I
need an FDA for that. and he told me he would get back to me with the information. Now the sad part is that even after I have had the conversation with him and granted it was a while ago but not only did he not get back to me
um there's also not an answer as to I mean their FD their violation says get an FDA or put the drainage ditch back. That's what the violation says. Well, all due respect, so that there there was
a mistake made with allowing the neighbor to the west to eliminate her drainage ditch because somebody wasn't paying attention to say, "Oh, no, we need that for the entire row of properties to drain." So that was an oversight from somebody
and now we are suffering the consequence from that and are the ones that are in the wrong and I am I have been in communication with them and instead of addressing that
and not getting back to me this it goes back to oh well she should be she's not moving forward with the FDA. I don't even want to address that just yet. I'm sorry because my point is not being addressed. I am not somebody
that's not trying to do things right. I have been in communication and we are facing the issue with being flooded. >> So I understand that and I hear that. But what what the only thing that's before me today is is whether there's a violation of the town code and whether or not you're required to get the FDA
permit. So, as it relates to meetings that you've had with town staff in the past and whether people followed up with you, I I can't do anything about that today. Did you follow up with Mr. Curts when you didn't get an answer? I mean, this looks like it's been going on for quite some time. So, >> Oh, for sure. But this is also I had a I
had a conversation with them two weeks ago. Um, they actually called me. >> Who's they? >> Um, Sandra called me about um >> who's Sandra at the front desk at Permits. I think she is. She's super nice and I have been really I have been
in here a lot. I mean if you ask her I mean oh my lord um to try to move these things along and and get things going and um oh god now I just lost my train of thought. Um, oh, right. Two weeks ago and she called
me and um I had a conversation with John and Jeff on the phone and I they said to me, "Oh, either way, we will get back to you before this hearing with an answer to the summary and what this is actually all about." Nobody got back to me. >> Okay,
>> but this is the thing. It's like it's not that I'm not I am not the one that is try isn't isn't trying. I'm trying to do all the right things and then they try to slap me for a $750 extra fine. You will find it in there because it's a
code violation. Well, it should have never been a code violation because I am complying. I am in communication. All Jeff had to do is say, "Okay, look, we looked into this with the neighbor to the da da da. This is what we do. Oh, this is what needs to happen for the all of that. That's all that needed to
happen. And now it's a code case and we're standing in front of you wasting time with this where I would have done whatever needed to be done but I wanted clarification because I have the these are the issues and they're real. Our property is being flooded. Our house is
being flooded and nobody ever got an answer about it either. Anyway, >> let me ask you this. Do you still have Jupiter Cibil? Are they still retained by you? >> Well, and this is the thing. So I they I hired um they did the initial FDA
application in UVA and and the the the the the um uh the plan the plans as to what should happen because we now decided since then we want to develop the property meaning we we want to put a barn and a cupboard and all of that. So which we need the FDA anyway work which
is all good but the the problem is Jupiter civil this relationship didn't work out so I did let them go and um I have now retained um um LDI um this all unfortunately brought everything a bit
to a screeching halt because there a holidays and then he was on vacation and to try to get them on to up to speed and with the comments and all of that you know how it is so this isn't us not moving forward and I actually have informed Sandra with permits here of
that very fact. So she knows that um that I had to switch engineers and and all of that. So this is again not us um not trying to do the thing but this is also a lot of work and a lot of going back and forth with the engineer of what
we want to have happen with the with the property and how to make this all the right way. I mean, it doesn't it's it this can only go so fast. Um but this is not us not doing anything. >> Okay. >> Um at all. >> How quickly can you get the the permit
for whatever it is you're trying to do submitted? >> Well, I already submitted the permit >> for everything that your new addition and whatever else you're trying to do. >> When when did you submit >> the the FDA just right? >> Yeah. Yeah. There FDA just was all submitted. >> They came back with comments
>> with comments and then >> So, you haven't addressed the comments. Okay. Okay. So, how quickly can your new engineer address the comments? >> Exactly. Exactly. But this all is taking some time, but this again I paid the the permitting fee. I I did all of it. >> So, how how long from today till your
engineer can get resubmitted and and you can get an FDA permit done? Does your engineer have all the drawings? Is he working on all of that? >> He has a Well, he was on vacation for two weeks and then the holidays and all of that. And I I would like to to get
if possible enough time because it's a big project and he now is he looked at it briefly and he says, "Oh, we have to do this all different and this and that and oh my lord." And it's like >> that was after the first submission and getting the comments back that we
realized the the other engineer really didn't know >> what he was. Okay. >> And >> so he needs to go through this whole thing again. It's not like he can if we could get just a few months of just trying to get this really right because it it obviously costs the town
uh engineers money and and hours and and to try to get it right instead of uh >> quick quick and then it's not right. It's just I got you there >> came to light that >> a lot of things needed to change. Um and but again I I yeah
>> so let me ask Mr. Suarez a couple of questions. First the you cited them for 1751 170 175 110 and 175240. The pictures in here clearly show that there was earth moving and and clearing activities that that would require the
FDA permit. Is there anything in in uh the code that allows work under emergency scenarios to be done? And that's section 175. Let me be specific. In emergency scenarios, I mean work
would be allowed, but that's what but then they would still have to apply for the permit after the fact. >> And is does the code specify a time frame? Typically codes say you can do emergency work, you have to get a permit within 5 days or days. >> Top of that. >> Okay. But there's no cart blanch authorization under the town code that
if it's an e situation, you can do whatever you want. You don't need the FDA. >> I'd have to get back to you on that. >> No, >> that's that's pretty important. Can we pull up the code? Yeah, >> because I only have what was cited in the notice of violation. And then the second question I have, Mr. Suarez, is do you have a signed copy of the notice
of violation at notice of hearing >> for today? >> I believe I do. >> Yes. >> Can you go get that? >> Did want to state for the record that of course it came from a complainant. Um, no one in town contacted code. Came from a complainant. That's when we opened the
case. And based off prior conversations with Craig um when he was there in December, that's uh how we obtained the pictures and enough evidence to go forward with the FDA violation. >> Okay. If you can get me the signed copy
of that no Miss Thomas, are you accessing the code? >> I'm trying to. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. All I have are just the sections that are in the NOV. Okay. Okay. 1751 170 just states development for which a
flood plane development permit or approval is required shall be subject to inspection. That's all that one says. Then 175110. Let me pull that one up. I apologize.
It's going slow. >> Okay. So, under 175-110 permits required. It states, "Any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to undertake any development activity within the scope of this article,
including building structures, and facilities exempt from the Florida building code, which is wholly written or partially within any flood hazard area, shall first make application to the flood plane administrator and the building official, if applicable, and
shall obtain the required permit or permits and approval or approvals. No such permit or approval shall be issued until compliance with the requirements of this article and all other applicable codes and regulations has been satisfied.
And then 240 175240 states violations any development that is not within the scope of the Florida Building Code, but that that is regulated by this article that is performed without an issued permit.
that is in conflict with an issued permit or that does not fully comply with this article shall be deemed a violation of this article. A building or structure without the documentation of elevation of the lowest floor other required design certifications or other
evidence of compliance required by this article or the Florida building code is presumed to be a violation until such time as that documentation is provided. All right. And there's nothing in there about emergency work? >> No, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> All right. And then is the town Mr. Suarez, I don't think I heard you say, are you seeking administrative costs for today's hearing? >> We are seeking administration costs, your honor. >> And is the amount >> $2345?
>> Okay. And can you show this to uh Miss Burke told Any objection to that being added to the file, Miss Burke told? It's just a signed copy of the same notice that you reviewed in this case file.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anything else, Miss Burke told? Yeah, I I would really kindly ask you to not impose a fee for this hearing um on us because again
there wouldn't have to be if Jeff had just gotten back to me like he said he would. There wouldn't be a code violation because I would have just done what he what needed to be done and he chose never to get back to me. Same for the $750 extra fee for the for the
permit because it was a code violation. Well, it didn't have to be that. All they had to do is get back to me and they just never did. And even now, when they said to me two weeks ago when we were talking on the phone and Jeff said, either way, we will get back to you
before this hearing because this is truly, oh, why is it not being moved forward? They know. >> So, I I hear that. Let me ask him to respond. I hear what you're saying and I will certainly take that into consideration. >> Go ahead, Mr. Curts. The FDA has to do with the fact that
land was cleared. Um, and the that's the the requirement. There's been an FDA application. The FDA application is not moving forward. It is apparently not moving forward because of dissatisfaction with her engineer having
nothing to do with town staff um response or non-response. Um uh the comments that were issued to the engineer are dated September 19th of 2025.
Um and we are just learning uh in today or possibly last week that they had um terminated their engineering company. with respect to two weeks ago and the comments about the $1,000 versus
the $250 that once again that has nothing to do with the fact that there was a code enforcement violation. um that has to do with the fact that work was done um prior to the issuance of a permit and
therefore there is a quadrupling of the permit fee. Despite the fact that at this point in time um the town has received $250, not $1,000 for the um permit fee. We have been processing the
FDA application. The issue um that uh was discussed with respect to the thousand dollars versus the $250 was there had been um apparently some
uh application uh for a reduction in the fee and um that uh our um Richard Galot had
told somebody verbally that it had it was um denied but had not issued anything in writing. Um and that is the matter we are still looking at. It has nothing to do with the reason that this
hearing is taking place. Um and it is nothing to do with uh the potential of a of a fine. So >> okay >> um the issues do not the issues of historical drainage
that may impact the FDA application. Um and that is something for uh the engineers uh to opine on and and uh and figure out whether or not um there should be some relief in that area. Once again, that's
not why we are here today. This is a somewhat unusual case in the fact that um there has been an application for the FDA. Um but it is not moving forward and apparently it's got to do with problems
that uh the owners had with their engineering um company and as you well know um they are not going to be subject to a fine today. um
you will um enter an order as to hopefully enter an order as to um requiring them to move forward in the process and give them adequate time um in light of the fact that they have just hired a new engineer.
>> Thank you. So, Miss Burkel, just so you know, I don't have latitude as it relates to permit fees. So, permit fees are set by Florida statute by the town code. I can't do anything about permit fees. The only thing I have latitude on is the administrative costs, which based on your argument, I will reserve administrative costs for today's
hearing. So, I'm going to give you time to comply. What my reservation means is that if you get to a fine assessment hearing and you come back to me uh on the date that I'm going to give you in a second, if I impose administrative costs, I could impose them for today's hearing at that next hearing. If if you
come back to me and or if the best case scenario is you don't come back to me with all due respect, you get complied and I don't see you again, you get your permit issued and it's done, that will mean that you don't get administrative costs imposed for today's hearing. Given the communication issues, I I I am sensitive to that. Um, and this is a
little bit anomalous and that this is going back quite a ways and and you're finally to a hearing. So, given what you said, I'm going to reserve on those. My hope is that I don't have to see you again and you get complied out because it sounds like you're trying to get through the process, but it's taking a bit of time. So, uh, I'm going to give you the latitude to get through the
process. Um, and and I'll I'll reserve those administrative costs. But, >> um, I can't do anything about the permit fees. So, those are what they are by state law and by by town code. So, you'll have to address those with the town. Uh, is there anything else you'd like me to hear before I make my ruling?
>> No, I think that's good. Yeah. >> Okay. Anything further from the town? All right. In case 25500004, I've entered uh both sides evidentiary case files. As it relates to service, I'll find that the town had good service. based on the notice documents in the case file which include an
affidavit of posting for the most recent notice of violation and notice of hearing. I'll find based on the photographs in the case file as well as the testimony of both the code enforcement officer as well as the respondents that the respondents in violation of sections 175
170 175 110 and 175240 of the town code. I'm going to require that you comply with those sections, which means having the FDA permit issued on or before February 27th, 2026. So, I'm giving you essentially 90 days to get the permit issued. Uh, if you don't achieve
compliance by that date and have the permit issued by the town, a $250 per day fine will start to run on February 28th. Um, if you don't comply by February 27th, you'll need to come back to me uh at the March 2nd, 2026 fine assessment
hearing. Um, and that will be the hearing that I impose the actually imposed the fines at. Uh, as I've indicated to you, although I have found you in violation, I'm going to reserve administrative costs for today's hearing. So, ultimately, your goal should be to get that FDA permit issued on or before February 27th, and then you
don't have to come back to a subsequent hearing. If you have to come back to a subsequent hearing, if you don't have the permits for whatever reason, come with all the evidence that you have at that hearing and explain to me why you haven't gotten the permit issued in that time frame. because although the FDA permit is a little bit more complicated, that 90-day period should be plenty of time for you to get through that
process, especially given how much time has already gone by uh in this case. So, I will reserve those administrative costs uh and I wish you the best of luck in getting the permit. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next case. So it
>> um it's Peter Graham and Melissa Marts address 14817 Snail Trail PCN 41414317 013090080 case number C25-28 code sections uldc 70-015
maintenance of swailes and coverts uldc C7-020 drainage to be contained on sitec 70-025 culverts required. Code compliance officer John is presenting KCE2528
in reference to the property located at 14817 Snell Trail. Notice of hearing notice of violation was posted at 14090 North Road on October 3rd, 2025. Copy of the same was mailed via certified USPS
um from the owner of the property appraiser on October 3rd, 2025. And a copy was also posted at town hall October 3rd, 2025. Um this is a this is a drainage culvert issue. There's blockage underneath the driveway culvert that is impeding the
flow into the canal causing um flooding issues on the surrounding properties cuz there is no flow underneath their culvert underneath their uh eastern most driveway. They have two driveways. Um, we have been an email contact with the
property owner as well as uh public works superintendent Craig Lower met with the property owner a few times I believe and uh explain the violation and ways to comply. At this time we are requesting that property owner be given
15 days to clear out anything impeding the covert to allow for proper drainage. We did go out this morning because they did send an email stating that they complied, but there is still blockage which we have photos of as of this morning. I believe around 8 in the
morning. The violation continues to exist after December 15th, 2025. The town is requesting $250 a day for the each violation. Additionally, it's recommended that the administration costs incurred an amount
of $2345 be assessed in order to be paid to the town of Lockache Groves and prepare to submit the uh case file as evidence. >> Any additional witnesses on this case? Any testimony? Inspect.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are you hearing me this one, sir? >> Yes, sir. >> Closer to the podium. What's your name, sir? >> My name is Peter Marts. I'm the property owner. >> All right. Give me just a moment to look at the case file and then I'll have Mr. Suarez hand it to you to look at and
then we'll go from there. All right, Mr. Suarez, can you show this to Mr. Marts? The case file. Same thing you've heard with all the other folks. Take a look through the case file and at the end I'm going to ask if you have any objection. Take as long as you need. There's a bunch of paperwork in there. >> Which one was taking this?
>> That's all I really care about. >> I mean, I thought I had a result. Uh, I've spent countless hours, tons of money. I've actually been in the canal with a 30foot power washer and I've had Flo go through it. I have videos of the flow. So, I'm just I want to know which
one it was. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I just had to let it through that. Um, okay. So basically this this in particular >> so let's let's start with the easy part before we get into the hard part >> here. Let me just tell you >> but hold on let's start with the
documents. Do you have any objection to those documents being entered? Okay go ahead. >> Okay so I have two driveways under both driveway is a pilot right. >> I bought the house in 2020. I had se was dirt road snail trail was a dirt road.
No problem. I drive a little sedan became a problem when it rained. started to get bumpy. I started to be a pain in the butt to Mr. Shore at the time who got Mr. Petersh who was leveling or excuse me who was grading our road at that time >> to get on the the schedule more
frequently. >> Okay. >> Because I was I don't think we were being serviced as frequently as we should. I was a thorn in his side and then basically that caused them to go from grading to leveling where they pushed off to the side. Eventually during the rainy season, if you look at
the topography of Snail Trail or 19th Street, my road, my second driveway and my first driveway are down, right? So when it rains, all of the road causes the water to come towards my driveway, which pushes the mud into my culvert. It
is not debris, it's not palm frrons or sticks. It is literal sand uh from the road that comes in there. I had uh several people out. Doesn't matter because I will get it resolved and I thought it was resolved. Uh several
professionals out, excavators out, money out of my pocket because I honestly I just want to sell my house and I'm so sick of the the stress that this causes. My wife's sick. I'm not into it. I've been trying to resolve this and it's
virtually uh impossible with the way that the water is held so high because of the work that's being done at Approing Collecting Canal that the water level stays up. I rent a 2-in trash pump, suck all the water out, have the
excavator pull the sand from the road and put it right back on the other side of the road so I can get the county to come pull it away. Uh, I've been in there blasting at it, but for the the county or the town to simply tell me
this was caused by me is ridiculous. I can fix that and I will get that fixed if this is what because I had water flow. I wasn't I I don't know how you got that picture. I had water flow through there. There is no water flowing now because there's no rain. So, when I
was spraying with it, water was flowing through. Now you see a jam and there's a an area at the top. I didn't see that. Uh that could be wider, but no water's going to flow because there's no rain. >> Okay. >> Water's stagnant everywhere. >> Okay. >> It's very hard for me without renting
expensive equipment and excavators to continue doing this with the water level being so high until whatever they're doing, and I've tried to get the public works to open the gate and drop the level, which they won't do. But basically, you can't get that mud or the
the road debris out of that because it's been backed up until there's no water. So, it's I mean, I'm I'm at a loss that that I'm I've had so many professionals uh and other people come out and tell me
that this was due to me not clearing debris and not due to the road being leveled and pushed into the canal. It's very frustrating to me. It's defeating honestly. Uh but I have all the equipment. I can get this sold in
whatever it is 15 days or however long you suggest. >> Okay. >> Uh I mean I literally It's disgusting how much effort I put in to fix something that was not caused by me. It's disgusting. >> So you you've had Who have you had in terms of professionals out at the site?
>> I I've had an excavator out there three times. I have had an irrigation company out there that basically said I can't do any because I was going to have the whole I wanted to see what the professionals would do and he basically said while this water level is so high you can't do anything. So I waited I and
these people have been great the the correspondence you guys have been awesome uh non-stop literally like 247 DM is like it's amazing how fast she is. So they the irrigation people have basically said we can't do anything until all the water's out of there and
the water is is up high because of I guess the water district holding it up high. But I can get in there I can suck the water out and I can get in there with a power washer and you just keep adding extensions to push it all the way through. It's just it's ridiculous. >> When you're doing that, what are you
pushing out? What is what is in the culver? >> It was >> when you what is road debris? What what do you mean when you say that? >> I live on a dirt road. >> So it's is it dirt that's coming out? Okay. >> Literally the dirt that is from the road when they come when you drive down any of these dirt roads. You'll see on the
side an embankment level that is going to push into. That's what I'm trying to get out. The physics doesn't allow mud to go against water and other debris very easily. It's just been so
ridiculous that um I've had to deal with this, but I am. So, if he said 15 more days or whatever it is to have it done, um I mean, you've seen the amount of work that I've done to both my driveways. I mean, I've spent thousands of dollars in tons of hours. And it's
because I don't want to argue. I just want to sell my house and leave. >> Okay. >> What's the town's response to what he's saying? >> Craig, did you want to speak to that matter? >> Um, and to come into compliance has to be water flow completely through it.
>> And just so the record is clear. Your name again? >> Craig Low, public work superintendent. >> And you're saying what? >> That the pipe is still clogged as you see in the picture is full of roots and debris. >> Okay. >> As that I went and took the picture this morning with Miss Deiana. >> Okay. Okay. And what you saw in the pipe
was what? >> Roots. >> Okay. >> It was full of roots and and debris. >> Okay. >> As you can see in the picture. >> Can I jump in so I don't go >> ahead stick go a little bit over there so the microphone >> I don't have whatever camera you have. So when I was sucking out with the 2-in
trash pump I had the the hose in there and I was blasting through there sucking out one side going through to the other and I was seeing water flow. So it was clearly almost there. I guess I mean I Yeah. I don't know how you're saying there's not water flow when there was
when debris literally bottles came out of there when I pushed it through. >> It's been jammed in that pipe since the 70s. It looked like I mean since way before I bought the property's opinion that it's not road debris that
is roots and black dirt, not road dirt that's clogging up the pipe and it is the owner's responsibility to clear whatever. >> So who from the town was out there this morning? myself and Diana. >> Okay. And what was observed to be in the pipe this morning? >> Me falling in the water.
>> Yeah, >> I did. Um, as I observed, I took my flashlight, shined it through the pipe, and took the camera, took a picture of it. As you can see in the one picture that there's the pipe is still full of roots and debris. >> When you say debris, you mean what?
>> As in mud and dirt. >> Just mud and dirt. >> Natural mud and dirt that would have flown through if it wasn't backed up. So, in the future, what will happen is long as that stays in there, the first rain, what little debris will come through with the rain will back up into
it just like hair in a drain. It'll instantly clog up and then we're back to square one again. Yeah. in that it's full of roots right now. It's going it's a a lot of work to get what he's trying to do. As if we went in and replaced it, we we
saw it, we would just pull the hole, put a new one in. >> But it's just mud. There's light there. There's space at the top. You could see in that picture that water would flow through. >> Yeah. But water flowing through that much with the first stick that comes through, it's kind of clogged and then we're back to square one again. It's not
a >> efficient for the town. >> Why would I replace that whole pipe when it's just some mud halfway through? And that mud was caused by the in my humble opinion the road being pushed into my
>> Yeah. So I I I'm not going to I don't I don't ever at these hearings I can't mandate how you comply, but I want to make sure we're clear that you're clear and I'm clear about what compliance is. Right. So I think what >> sell my house with an open violation. >> Right. What I'm hearing from them is that it's not just some water coming through the pipe. The the entire culvert
has to be open. So you have to be able to look into the pipe or the code officer is going to have to come out there and look into the pipe and and be shown that it's completely open. Is that accurate? Is that what the code requires? >> Okay. So, it's not just a little bit of water coming out on one end or the other. >> Sure. >> It's the full the pipe being completely
open. So, how you get there, I'm not going to prescribe or mandate. Um, but I just want to make sure you understand so that you can get into compliance. Um, given your understanding of that, how much time do you need to do that? >> I would like 30 days. >> Okay. >> Just because I I work also this
>> I'm happy to give you a reasonable amount of time to comply. So, I I appreciate your efforts to to get into compliance and I'm willing to give you the time that you need to do that. Um >> because Craig, if I replace that pipe, the next owner of the property, the
first big rain, anybody who lives around here on dirt road knows that when there's a big rain, that that mud's going to come straight into the canal. So, even if I had a brand new pipe that was completely open, it would just get packed up again because that one side would get covered unless I build a wall
or shut off my driveway and it would just get backed up again. It's just as long as the road keeps getting leveled, you won't see me again because I'll resolve it and move, but you're going to see somebody else in a couple years who's going to have the same problem. And that's all because of the leveling,
not the grading that was done to my road, which might have been my fault for asking Robert Shore to have it done and pestering Mr. Peter. So, >> let me ask Mr. Torres, can you get that case file back for me? >> I mean, Craig, I can go to Palm Beach
Ironworks and buy a 15t iron rod and get down there. >> Yeah. However you get it clear, like she stated, that's up to you. >> Yeah. >> And what I would >> I just think it's absurd that the the town doesn't take any credit or the I
mean, I've lived there for so long and it's just so disappointed. But what >> Well, the difficulty I have and I I I would understand your argument, but the the photographs that I'm seeing, there's some other things in there. So, the dirt is difficult. what I have his testimony
that it's not road based that it's that it's mud and other things. So I have to I have to take that testimony for what it is. I can see for myself that there are tree roots in there. So it's >> 100% >> there are some other things going on. I appreciate that there may be some >> but if you go to any exacerbation of it
>> in this town you'll see little roots going through. We live in the swamp. I mean to say no roots you you don't see anything around that it's that's not nature. >> Well but this is not supposed to be nature. This is supposed to be an open pipe. So, >> yeah, this I I go I'm going with you to
a certain degree, but my more important thing is to give you a reasonable amount of time to comply so you can move on with with >> um more important things. Um is there anything else you'd like me to hear, sir? >> No. >> Okay. And you think 30 days is enough?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. And I would certainly encourage you the moment you have it cleared, however you get it cleared, call Mr. Suarez or Miss Thomas, whoever you normally call, and have them come out. I would take photographs, >> communicate with them a lot. They they will tell you that I feel like if I needed something from you, I could ask
them like, you know, I've been pestering them because it's it's really it bothers me because I have a beautiful property >> and >> and you don't want this and I don't want this. >> Yeah. So, as soon as you have it done, >> the neighbors are selling their pro their properties, right? which is ultimately going to affect my property
price when I sell mine because they're comps, right? >> You know, I have all this work and it looks like crap because I'm digging all this sand out of the cover and the neighbors are probably thinking, "Oh, what is this? What is this? What is this? I don't want to live here." >> Look, it doesn't look good. >> Make sure when you're done and you have
called them that they give you an affidavit of compliance so you have that for your files. That's that's the only thing you want and you want that done by the date that I'm about to specify. So, I encourage you just to make sure you're in communication. It sounds like you have been continued to do that. Anything further from the town? >> Nothing.
>> All right. In case 2528, I'll enter the town's evidentiary case files composite exhibit one without objection. I'll find based on the notice documents in the case file which include an affidavit of posting that the town had good service for today's hearing. I'll find based on the testimony of the
code enforcement staff and the uh utility staff, public works staff that the respondents in violation of section 70-015, 70-020 and 70-025 of the ULDC.
And I'll require the respondent to comply with those sections on or before January 2nd. So, I'm going to give you the 30 days that you've asked for. Um, in the event of non-compliance, a $250 per day fine will be assessed for each day the violation continues. And in the event of non-compliance, though I don't expect this, you'll have to come back to
me on on um January 5th is the fine assessment hearing date of 2026. So, um, get it complied. As I told you, call them as soon as it's done so they can comply you out and be done with it. Because I have found you in violation, I do have to award them their administrative costs in the amount of
23405 and those are payable within 30 days. So, best of luck to you. Um, and make sure you keep in touch with Mr. Suarez. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Where do I pay the bill? >> Um, the front counter. >> Yeah.
>> Ready to move on to the next case? >> Yeah, it's Mr. But we just need a bathroom break. But yes, >> you want to call it in and then hopefully he'll be >> It's um John Evan and Arlene Smith.
Address 14805 Okobee Boulevard. PCN number 41 414317013130010. Case number C25-32. Code sections 20 010 G1 general provisions outdoor
storage 20-017 prohibited uses. >> Good morning. My name is Jack Rice with the law firm of Gunster Yi. I'm here on behalf of the respondent. I have not been sworn in if we want to uh check that box for procedural purposes, but
Mr. Suarez has just walked back in. >> If you want to be sworn, I'm happy to swear you. I either whatever your preference. Um if it's town tradition to swear in the attorneys um >> typically not unless you're Yes. So >> I would prefer not to. >> All right. So no swearing.
>> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Suarez compliance officer Josh Suarez presented KC 2532 in reference of the property located at 14805 children. Notice of hearing notice of violation violations must posted at 1409 North Road on
October 30th. Oh, I'm sorry. 14805 Boulevard. Uh, October 30th, 2025. Um, order finding violation was mailed certified to the property owner from Pal Beach Property Appraiser October 30th,
2025 and a copy was to same dates. The violations that exist are section 20010 outdoor storage, section 200017 graded use. The property use code on this um is single family on this property. Um we
have been in constant contact via email with Mr. Rice, which he's a council for the property owner. He stated he will seek a special exemption approval to operate a hauling company at 14805 Boulevard. Um they have hay operations
on site including hay storage, transport and dispatch. They also have up to three employees involved in transport. So the town is requesting at this time 15 days to file the document with a
business enterprise and then after that is in requesting 90 days for the council to remove to approve or not approve the application. Additionally, it is recommended that the
administration cost amount of $4345 be assessed in order to be paid on the black side. Have the case folder sub. >> All right, let me look at that real quick and then once I've looked at it, you can show it to Mr. Rice.
And while I'm looking at this, you cited them for outdoor storage. What is the outdoor storage? >> The outdoor storage you'll see in the aerial views on property appraiser. It's also storage of trucks, I believe, and containers for the business. The whole
>> What? What business is it? It's a hay business. >> Okay. Yeah, code is single p this. >> And where is that use code coming from? The use code is from the property.
For the record, we have uh sent over the link to submit all documents. M >> the link to what? There's a link for him to fill out the forms and the paperwork for the proposal
that he is requesting for a business enterprise be conducted at that property address because right now it's prohibited. But he was given the option of either cease and assist your business or proceed with his request to do a
business enterprise. But that has to be approved by council and he is aware What has to be filled out and submitted? >> Mr. Suarez, you have multiple affidavits of posting in here. Did you post this site multiple times?
>> We did um remove it. So, yeah, we did. I did post it a few times. >> And what was the reason for the >> request an extension and um the last agenda posted? >> Basically, it was to give them time to
figure out what they wanted to do. And there's a 2024 vegetation removal permit in here. What's the relevance of that? >> Just added it for evidence because um they remove vegetation, but now there's so much storage there that I mean
it may coincide with the other. They removed it for the storage of trucks in the business. Okay. And you have division of corporations paperwork in here showing that there's a Barrow Transport and a B&E equestrian services that have a principal address at this site. Is that those are the
businesses that are operating there? >> Correct. Um in the email with Mr. Rice. I believe you mentioned the u which is inactive within Sunday at this time. Yes, since it's from the email. >> Okay.
>> Special magistrate, I do have some objections as to the photographs in that specific document. If you want, I will back raising them. >> Yep. We'll get there. Let me just look through the rest and then I'll have him show you the file and you can give me any objections that you have. All
right, Mr. Suarez, can you show Mr. Rice the case file? and you've heard all the uh statements I made to the prior respondents. Take a look, take as much time as you need. There's quite a bit in there. Let me know if you have any objection to any of the documents.
While I'm reviewing this, can I pass the special magistrate as well as the town attorney a copy of a Florida statute that they can review while I'm going? >> Yeah, please give it to Mr. Suarez and he'll give it to Mr. Curts before I see it. Any
objection, Mr. Rice, to those documents? >> Special Mist Trade, I have some cross-examination of border as to the uh the photographs to the extent the town intends to rely on the property appraisers aerials. Um I'd offer that they're prohibited by section 93.9
34.50 Florida statutes as well as have some uh cross-examination related to them. What was the statute you rattled? 93 point what? >> 934.50. >> Thank you. So, you're objecting to just the aerials. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> And then I I do not actually see it in
the special magistrates's copy of case file, but earlier I thought there was a a Sun Biz registration for Borrows Transport. >> It was in there. >> Okay. Um Borrow Transport and Boss is actually the prior owner of the property as is evidenced by the actual property
appraisers. uh ownership. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I saw that. I saw that borrow be excluded as it's not my client. >> All right. Any other objections? >> Uh just the cross- examination uh and questions related to uh the photographs
to the extent you bring them. >> Yeah, you you can I'll give you time to do that. >> Okay. >> All right. So, give the case file back to Mr. Suarez. Do you have any uh you had a statute is that what you had gave to Mr. Curts for entry into the record? Is that it? >> Copies there. There's one for the town and one for you. >> And that's all you have in terms of evidence? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Paperwork. Okay. So, with that, let's just get the documents out of the way. I'll enter into the record uh the town's evidentiary case file as composite exhibit one. I'm going to enter that over objection. And I'll also enter uh Mr. Curts, any objection to the statute provided?
>> No objections. I'll enter what I'll mark as respondents exhibit R2 which is a copy of 934.50 Florida statutes. I'll enter that uh without objection. Go ahead Mr. Rice. >> Uh regarding my void related to the
photographs. Do you want me to address Mr. Suarez directly or? >> Yes, please. >> Uh Mr. Suarez, I'm basically going to ask you um some questions that are typically known as cross- examination. You can respond to them with yes or no unless your attorney objects or tells you otherwise. Um, I'll speak
collectively regarding the case file. Were the aerial photographs that are in the case file taken under your supervision? >> We did not take the aerial photographs. It was from the property website there. >> Do you know what dates those photographs
were taken? Sir, yes or no will suffice. >> No, I don't. I can pass the town attorney a black and white copy of the case file that I was previously given. >> Oh, you need the case file back. Is that what you need? >> Uh, and Mr. Suarez, do you know if any of
the photographs are clear and accurate depictions of the property as it exists today? I cannot tell you then. I could only go off the the satellite. >> That's all I have for Mr. Suarez. >> Okay.
[Music] Any other cross-examination? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. You can proceed with your standard testimony then. >> Um, so in in general, uh, I think there's there's been some confusion between, uh, my my client and the town
itself. um with regard to the uses that are permitted at the property. Um but the only evidence that's in the file is my correspondence with the town regarding a development application. Earlier we were calling it a business enterprise. I believe it's a residential enterprise. Um and there's still some
nuances related to that that I need to iron out with the town attorney related to agriculture. Um but we are going to proceed under um one of those two routes. Um, so I mean my argument really there is that I would say my correspondence is not necessarily what I
would call substantial evidence to meet the substantial evidence and anything from it because anything arising out of it requires an implication. But nevertheless, we are intending to pursue the applications um or a permitted use after discussions with the town attorney. >> And when you say applications, I don't
mean to interrupt you, but just so I understand what you mean. What do you mean? You mean >> there's some confusion with the outdoor storage in the town code. I don't know if you have a copy of the ordinances in front of you, but the actual section that it relate where that's referenced for outdoor storage. I believe it's
20010G. >> Mhm. >> I think if you look down at subsection 2A as well as 3D and then further under E, you'll see some provisions related to construction vehicles, farm equipment as well as commercial vehicles at properties. I think specifically um with
regard to um farm equipment, it's allowed to be at the property so long as it's not any rights of way. I'm speaking from memory, so somebody is welcome to clarify. Um and then there's another provision that actually allows commercial vehicles. Um but it states that the commercial vehicles uh must be
screened. If there's more than two, I think it states that there must be screened. >> Okay. Um certainly I think uh the property owner is allowed to uh own um a trucking company and be employed by a trucking company. Um and that the trucks
come basically parks them at their home at the end of the day and then drives to work, but they're not actually actively engaged in trucking at the property. Um but in any ways we're trying to iron out those understandings with the town. Um, so really all we're asking for today is
that either um the the case be continued for us to resolve our differences with the town um as well as possibly to pursue the development application. So I think the town is seeking a violation and we're seeking a continuence and our request would be for an equal amount of uh time as the town
is requesting which I believe is 105 days. Mr. Suarez, what was your remedy request in this case? >> It was to will apply >> within 14 days. >> Mhm. And then 90 days to Yeah. Okay.
Does the town have a response generally to Mr. Rex's statements or requests for continuence? >> Um, does statement for outdoor storage? Any outdoor storage could be in incidental use to the property. And since it's code as
single family no outside there's no incidental use for the storage on the property >> we don't have an objection to continuence >> thank you >> is that a straight continuance so no or
are you seeking a finding a violation today or do you want to have discussions outside of this process >> okay So 105 days is a very random number. >> So would that be that you April hearing
or the March hearing? >> I think >> April hearing. Are you in agreement, Mr. Rice? >> Yeah, I think I I heard 104 or 105, but April hearing is fine. >> So that would be April 6th. And Mr. Rice, you're in agreement.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. So, with that, uh, the only thing I need to find additionally, I've entered both sides. I'll ask that to the extent there's a hearing on April 6th, that this evidentary case file, which also includes Mr. Rice's, exhibit R2, comes back to me in the same form that I
saw it today. Uh but the only other thing I need to do on the record here is find a uh legally sufficient service which based on the documents in the case file the notice documents which include an affidavit of posting as well as uh USPS delivery confirmation of the
certified mail the town had good service for today's hearing. So with that, in case CE25-32, I will grant the mutually agreed continuence and I will reset this for uh violation hearing on April 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. >> Thank you, ma'am.
>> Thank you. Next case. >> Um, the next case, Scott and Christina Divine. Um, the address is 1037F Road has been removed from the agenda. >> Being pulled from the agenda. Very good.
Thank you. >> Next case. So then the next case um is for petition to code enforcement special magistrate to determine compliance. The property is listed as el the
property owner is listed as eldovich address 1032 park road. PCN number 41414317015350030. Case number 2020 06122. The code section was under the uldc
175110 permits required. Uh the petition was requested by Katie Edwards Waffle where the property owner Lad Iskovich and I'm going to defer it to our town attorney. Let me just ask for one clarification
because the documents that I got I think there were two actually two petitions right for two different case numbers. >> Yes, there is an amended petition that we have. >> I have documents for case number 2309 also 0001.
So miss I just want to make sure that that's added. I guess we need to add that to the agenda because there's only one listed on here. Okay, >> Miss Walpole, is that is that accurate? >> Madame Magistrate, thank you. Um, we did submit two. However, the item that was
published for petition for hearing today is the case number ending in 6122. So, since that is the only petition that was noticed and before you, we are prepared to uh present on that petition alone.
And that's just for notice purposes. So you're not intending, you're not requesting hearing on 230900001. >> We did. However, that's not what's on the agenda today. >> So you're requesting that that be placed on a subsequent agenda. Is that correct?
>> Yes. And I in fairness to the town. I've been in contact with the town attorney. So uh believe when he is ready to present, we can take up the petition, the second petition that was filed. again the one that's on the agenda today
there's there's only one agenda or I'm sorry only one petition before you today >> okay very good so let then given that uh I will stand corrected and leave it well enough alone with the one that is on the agenda so Mr. Curts, go ahead. >> Well, it is well Edward's
petition. So, >> and and let me ask >> I think I think that we have got a basic resolution of this matter is my my understanding based on our conversation with respect to this
particular >> I just want to make sure she can hear you. Can you hear him, Miss Walple? He's not I think he needs to be on the microphone. >> Yes. Thank you for asking. It is. I can hear the magistrate just fine. It is difficult to hear Mr. Curts, however. >> Okay. Thank you. We're resolving that now.
>> Thank you. >> Um I was going to say that uh petition is um the respondent's petition. Um so but I think that we have basically resolved the issues but I'll let uh
Edwards go >> and let me just before we get too far into any any discussion on merits. Let me ask you Miss Walpole is I I received the documents that you submitted in advance of this hearing. But what I just want to be clear about is uh there are a lot of cases that come through um the
town's docket that I ultimately hear. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Was this matter appealed? This original order? >> This one was not appealed originally. I was I was retained by the property owner at the end of January and I had been
working with him uh mainly the capacity to get the permits and to bring the property into compliance. And so the one that you have before you today deals just with one specific portion of the code and it relates to uh the FDA permit
application and when um the town would consider compliance achieved whether it would be when we submitted the application for the FDA um or subsequently other permits thereafter. So that's really what we're trying to determine is uh as we continue to work
through the permit comments and issuance is when the um compliance is achieved, what benchmark constitutes compliance. And then the second issue um I believe it relates again just to the requirement
to obtain the FDA. we have uh one violation and then there is a an order dealing with a repeat violation for the same section. So even if we need to continue to give time for
additional factor review, we understand and appreciate that. However, those are really the two issues today is is for compliance as it relates to uh the FDA and the original order and the finding of repeat violation. >> All right. So, so both parties are in
agreement that for case 2020 06122 that matter was not appealed to the 15th circuit. Okay. And so um with respect to uh the FDA
um it is the um issuance of the FDA and the ultimate u satisfaction of the the work that is required under the FDA
that we are looking for as compliance. Um I think with respect to there were several cases um that were were brought um and although they say cited the same section, they had to do with
different issues or triggers um causing there to be an FDA. Um, and so in in one case, uh, it dealt with the, uh, the rear of the property, if you
will, um, and, uh, clearing and development of a ring. Um, and then there was the construction of a barn. Um and then the subsequent item of the repeat violation can't to do with
um mounds of uh dirt and materials on on the site. So although the same section was um cited, uh it was three different instances that um triggered the
necessity of of FDA. And so the the magistrate found that there was violation all all three circumstances and assess fines. The resolution of um
the FDA cases is um the application for F FDA uh that has been uh submitted. um they they are in the in the process um and it is the
issuance and then um you know completion of whatever works are necessary uh pursuant to the permits that is issued as what we would um view as compliance and I think one of the the respondent's
questions um has to do with u processing of the the application. Um I think we have reached an agreement that the um response engineer
um and uh the town's new FDA administrator would um review what has been submitted and get clarification as to uh what is necessary to um move that
application forward. Uh and issue. I don't know if you got if there are further questions with respect to whether the town's position is on uh complies. Does the town have hard copies of what
Miss Walpool submitted there? This is just my case file. So, let me not I guess specifically what I'm looking for is the order in case 2020.
>> The order in case 2020. >> Yes. >> 06122. >> Yes. Do you have a signed copy of that that I could take a look at? Miss Walple, I don't think I I think I got amended petitions, but most of the supporting exhibits were for this the other case that's not on the agenda. So, I just
want to see the order. That's fine. I believe that this one and I was trying to to keep it separate and not get into other issues. This is the one that was 166 pages and I believe it's under
exhibit two. The original order assessing fine So the is did I hear Mr. Curts correctly? The FDA permit has not been issued still. Is that correct? >> We made the application for Yes, we made
the application for the FDA and then we're told we needed to apply for a land development permit. The one thing I would um point out though, I was listening to some of the comments earlier with respect to time frames is
the bill that went into effect January 1, 2025. That was House Bill 267 that addresses the time frames for determining sufficiency, completeness, and processing.
And uh while I was waiting, had a chance to take a look at that. Again, that was House Bill 267. Um, and that includes site plan approvals, not requiring public hearing or notice, as well as lot grading and
site alteration. Part of our concern was that this would not be, you know, a yearslong endeavor to process the application, but in trying to come prepared with the requirements for the FDA itself
and then of course working through any comments that the town may have on their side. I would point out, you know, Mr. Galant is no longer with the town. The reviewer who was assigned to this application is no longer there. Um the
client's engineer of record was able to pop on for a bit. He had to leave, but we want to make sure obviously we can address those comments timely and completely. But there are there are time frames for for both sides to to do
just that. I think u I think you had inquiries. What was it? Uh November 7th is my recollection of the inquiries you made with respect to the comments that were previously
sent by um our reviewer. >> Yes. Part of that was um the requirement Yeah. the comments to obtain a a road or a driveway, I'm sorry, a right-of-way permit. And so we had um
sent a letter which is more in in illegal nature looking at the uh designation. Is it a a road or is it a a driveway access easement to make sure that we're not experiencing some of the concerns you heard today over, you know,
whose ability to drain off site? Is it on the property? Is it an easement? what exactly is this area so that we know uh additional types of permits that may need to be required primarily to keep >> I guess I'm not understanding let let's
just be clear about what what the task is here for me today so the the order that's dated May 17th which is why you've requested this hearing >> yes >> it says should a dispute arise concerning compliance either party may request a hearing before the code enforcement special matter on the issue of compliance only so what is the issue
about compliance If the testimony is there's no FDA permit issued, what what is the issue? >> Well, >> why is there ambiguity about compliance? >> The issue is we submitted the application for the FDA going through the checklist of what was required to do just that updated survey,
the technical information, make the application, and then we're told, >> right, it's still being processed going back now to June. Then we're told, no, you need to apply for this type of permit. I don't have any end in sight as to how long it's going to take to reach
compliance. Is it when you submit the application and someone determines it's complete? You know, we're supposed to have clear guidelines to make this application. I come, you know, with a survey within the last year. I have technical information for them to be able to review to check the boxes for
compliance with something. It cannot be a regulatory whack-a-ole where we're constantly having to figure out what else might be needed. >> That's why I wholeheartedly agree with you. >> I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. But what I also want to be sensitive to is that this is not a second method by
which you can create a record or or do some other appeal. This is only as it relates to to how you are to comply. Uh and by reviewing the order assessing fine, the respondent did not appear at the hearing where I issued that order. So that's the hearing where there can be
discussion and that's the hearing where you've heard all of these hearings. you've been on the computer now for over 3 hours listening to what what it amounts to to comply with each of these code enforcement cases. So, I don't know why the respondent didn't didn't appear at that hearing, but I don't even think
that that matters here. The order that I signed found your client in violation of section 175-10. So, let's look at the language of 175-110. And I'm going to read it. It says 175-110 permits required. any owner or owner's authorized agent here and
after applicant who intends to undertake any development activity within the scope of this article including building structures and facilities exempt from the Florida building code which is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area shall first make application to the flood plane administrator and the building official
if applicable and shall obtain the required permits and approvals. No such permits or approval shall be issued until compliance with the requirements of this article and other applicable codes and regulations have has been satisfied. So as I read this code section, compliance is obtaining the FDA
permit. Period. >> Okay. >> Not completing the work required under the FDA permit. Issuance of the FDA permit. However, I will note that the last section there or the last sentence says you have to comply with the code requirements of the of chapter 175. So
whether there are additional things that the town requires you to do as part of the FDA permit, I can't opine on that here today. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that compliance with 175-110 is issuance of the FDA permit.
>> Is that from 2017? The code provision that's what we looked at as well. We've been waiting in good faith for the town to update that regulations which another delay. >> So I understand the frustration. and I watch the meetings and we're all trying to figure out what we need to do, what
information to come prepared to satisfy the flood plane criteria, not for lack of trying, but I'll probably be here in a year asking the same question. What does it mean to achieve compliance? That's that's been that's been the question. And when the
fines are going at X amount per day, there's no incentive for the town to enable us to come into compliance, process the application with the criteria that was set forth on a piece of paper. >> And I think that >> that's what I'm trying to figure is when
when do we when do we achieve compliance >> issuance of the permit? Yeah, my understanding of the code and my read of that section of the code and and that that is has been my interpretation of that code all along is that people standing before me for for FDA permit violations, issuance of the
FDA permit is compliant. So once the town issues you the FDA permit, the code enforcement case is is technically complied and and you're you're done. >> Okay. So given this request, what um
I I have not historically issued a subsequent order uh after after these types of hearings. What what is the desire of the parties in this at this time? And this was this was your request or your petition uh Miss Edwards
Walpole. What is your is that sufficient on record testimony or or on record determination or or what? >> Well, obviously there's there is a desire to continue to work to process what's before the town. Whatever
application or mechanism they call it a week from now, the desire remains the same and the engineer of record just joined. We want to make sure we're very clear on what compliance is and all of the permits and approvals that are required. There
should not be any more surprises or additional things. I mean, the code is the code. We made the application. We want to complete it and get the permit issued, but do it within the time frames of state statute. That is it. And I would say the I'll leave it at that on
the merits of the code and the policy decisions. And you know, I I have to look at federal and state law first and any client bring them into compliance. What that means today, whether or not they've had a chance to update their code or not, that's always the underlying goal is to do it once,
measure twice, and cut once. And in this case, we want to make sure we're doing it correctly. and whatever has been asked that we're responding and again I want to make sure if the requirement was to apply for the FDA I
think I had heard earlier you know once you make the application the permit is issued then you know we'll have timelines for completion as it relates to building permits that's fine we understand that we're trying in good faith to understand you know what is going to achieve compliance
and I don't know that there's resolution on that. But certainly the engineer is willing to work with the new person who's coming in. We don't want to experience protracted delays unnecessarily. If it's get the landment permit, then that needs to be very clear. That's
what's going to achieve compliance. If it was apply for and obtain the FDA, then obviously we have time frames for making the application for the town doing its part and that that's been truncated by the state legislature. I disagree with the sentiment that there
is no time frame. That is that is not state law. Um so obviously to want to come prepared. We want to be very clear on what it's going to take to have a permit issued to make a permit application and what all goes into it so that we can truly be in compliant and
and then move on. I think that's fair to all sides and that's been a recurring theme in in observing these meetings. everyone's asking a lot of the same types of questions. >> Well, yeah, and in fairness, and again, I don't want to get too far too far down the rabbit hole because this is not an
appeal. This is this is a determination strictly as it relates to to the issue of compliance. But what you haven't heard in any of the prior cases is you haven't heard me mandate uh a time frame by which any respondent apply for a permit. That is not required by the code. The code requires that you obtain
a building permit, obtain a FDA permit, obtain whatever vegetation removal permit, a tree mitigation permit, whatever the code is. Not that you apply for that. So, I I do not uh typically like to bifrocate them that way. Uh because technically compliance is not applying for anything. Compliance is
having the actual permit, whatever permit it is in whatever case we're talking about, having that issued. And I just want to make sure that um you look at your notice of violation too because what it says for corrective action in this case is obtain necessary permits.
So that that is a second suggestion as to what it means to comply uh with this code case. So you know again I can't deal with if if there are communication issues outside between the parties and and there are other issues you may have some other legal mechanism. I can't
opine about that. That's not before me today. But what I can tell you is that the code section that I read into the record previously is pretty clear. Um, obtaining the required FDA permit is compliant. So, uh, I I don't think there's any ambiguity there. Um, I have certainly not ever applied their code,
the town's code that is in any other manner than that. Uh, it's always been obtain the permits, not do anything else. Um, but obtain the permits. And once you have them in your hand and they've been signed off on by the town, then then you're uh out of code enforcement trouble, if you will. So, um
that will be my opinion, I guess, for the record. How how does this need to be memorialized? >> All right, we'll just have the minutes. I'll ask that the minutes of the of the hearing reflect >> that determination. Are you in
agreement, Miss Edwards Walpole? >> Yes. I mean, for this case, the the other items that you referenced, the the building permit, that that part has been signed off on. >> No, no, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to complicate. I was just speaking generally any permits, not not specific
to your case or your site or your client. Just generally speaking, any code section that says you have to have a permit to do whatever it is. Not not specific to your site. >> Yeah. What what may be helpful um is if u
Mr. Wall and I work on stipulated order. I think what I think what you want is an acknowledgement that you have made the proper application for the proper permit um and that the issuance of that um
permit for which we've already made an application is going to be sufficient um for us and I think we can give you uh that related order uh which uh you can sign off on and you
if others do. The reason I'm referring to it that way is uh we can actually reference the permit application that has been submitted. >> That is totally fine with me. Is that uh does that sound sufficient to you, Miss Edwards Waffle?
>> We're amendable to continuing to work through these steps to achieve compliance, and I appreciate the town attorney's uh graciousness and his time to work through that. and of course allow the professionals to address any other open
matters. We just want to bring this in for a landing so we're all very clear on what is required at this point. >> All right. So, you're in agreement that I will sign a a what will be a joint stipulated order that's that uh says
that your client has submitted the correct application, whatever permit number it is, FDA permit number it is, and that in this uh case number, compliance uh will be determined once the FDA once that permit number uh FDA permit has
been issued. Are you in agreement with that, Miss Edwards Walpole? I'll have to speak to my client, but I believe that that's that's fair to allow us to continue to work on the mechanics. >> Okay?
>> And by that, I simply mean what additional permits and whether it's the rightway permit, which we're waiting for feedback on. I think that's the only other remaining item. Well, just so we're clear, the order
won't speak directly to that. It'll just reference the FDA permit because that's all that's within my purview is the FDA permit under 17510. >> Okay. >> Is there an issue? >> Okay. >> It's tough to say. Yeah. I mean, I can I
apologize. It's tough to say without the town's engineering consultant and their flood plane person. I I look at you know FDA separate but a part of land development. So I think Mr. Curts and I can work on
clearly identifying any additional permits or steps that are needed given where we are today. So, do you want me to prepare a joint order or are you two going to have discussions and you want to bring something back to me at the next hearing? >> Bring something to you. We may submit it
um jointly prior to >> Are you okay with that? That I think that's what I'm hearing you say, Miss Edwards Walpole, is that there's some other things that you want addressed. I'm happy to let you all do that, but for me to issue an order today, I need you both to agree on record as to what my order is going to say. um because of the nature of this request, but if
you're if you want to work with Mr. Curts outside of this and bring back a joint uh stipulation to me at the next hearing, I'm I'm totally happy to to review and and execute that then. >> Sure. I think we would uh be best to continue the matter. We'll work on what that joint
stipulation looks like. that will give us time to come back to you uh with something that is united and we've had a chance to review and you continue to um reserve your jurisdiction in this matter just on the issue of compliance alone.
>> All right. So, I will sign I will draft and sign an order today that says uh that reiterates the compliance determination that I just made and that also indicates that the parties will be uh working outside separately and we'll bring back to the magistrate uh a joint
stipulation at a future hearing date. Are the parties amendable to that? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Anything further, Miss Edwards Walpole? >> No, Madam Magister. Thank you. That's
all we have. I appreciate your time. >> No problem. I'm sorry uh for the wait that you had to and I'm sorry you got dumped there off the hearing. The power went out here for a second. So, apologies for that. >> Not a problem. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay.
>> All right. So that appears to be the last item on the agenda. Is that correct? >> Fisherman, I didn't I wasn't here. I apologize. Did we approve the minutes? Because I skipped over that. I went straight to the case. >> Back to that. I skipped over that inadvertently. So yes, I did review uh the minutes listed on the agenda from
August 4th, 2025, August 22nd, 2025, September 8th, 2025, and September 17, 2025. And I will uh mark those as approved. >> Thank you. >> And then the hearing date, did you need confirmation from me? I have this on my schedule as January 1st or excuse me,
January 5th. So that should be fine. Unless you all tell me otherwise, I will be here. >> No, no, no. We will not be here then. No, no, no, no. >> All right. And with that hearing, nothing further, I'll adjourn this hearing at 12:29. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you.