Loading...
Minutes 02-16-22 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE COMPLIANCE/LIEN REDUCTION HEARINGS HELD IN THE CITY HALL COMMISION CHAMBERS, 100 E. OCEAN AVE. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022, AT 9 A.M. PRESENT: Hilary Zalman, Esq., Community Standards Special Magistrate Vestiguerne Pierre, Community Standards Supervisor Candice Stone, Director, Community Standards Tanya Guim, Administrative Supervisor Community Standards Charnice Harrison, Community Standards Associate City Attorney Jennifer Oh, Recording Secretary, Prototype, Inc. I. CALL TO ORDER Hilary Zalman, Community Standards Special Magistrate, called the Hearings to order at 9:05 a.m. and explained the Magistrate's role and the procedures. Pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, all orders are appealable only to the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County and not to the City Commission. Also, a fine will be imposed if the violation(s) are not corrected by the deadline. II. INTRODUCTION AND SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES Administrative Supervisor Guim administered an oath to all those intending to testify. IV. NEW BUSINESS NOTE: Item #7 started at 10:55 a.m. Case Hearing Case No. 21-1000 White Rose Homes LLC Property Address: 132 NE 12th Avenue Property Type: Multi-Family Property Violation(s): CH 15, SEC 15-116, Sub-Section A of the Boynton Beach Chronic Nuisance Property Code This case was presented by Director Candice Stone, which was a City Department referral. The initial inspection date was April 20, 2021, and the initial Notice was issued April 26, 2021, with 60 days to comply. The property owner was provided with a Chronic Nuisance Agreement, which they signed at the time of issuance; however, they did not follow through with all the requirements of the Agreement. The City is requesting a finding that the property is a chronic nuisance. The property owner did not comply with the Agreement pursuing to Section 15-116, Sub-Section A. When the property owner violates Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 the Agreement, the City may prosecute a Declaration of Chronic Nuisance at a Hearing. She mentioned the binder with the following Exhibits: Exhibit A: Notice of Declaration of Chronic Nuisance, which was issued to the property owner on April 26, 2021. Exhibit B: Signed Chronic Nuisance Agreement, was signed on May 27, 2021, and the City signed on June 7, 2021. Exhibit C: An excerpt of the signed Agreement that specifies requirements of what the property owner agreed to. This lists six requirements, two of which were not completed. As a result of noncompliance, this matter was scheduled for a Hearing. Exhibit D: A composite of documentation of the incidents. Exhibit E: Certified Green Card and Affidavit of Posting. The Notice of Hearing was issued to the property owner by the means of Certified Mail and posting the property. Exhibit F: The two requirements that were not completed are installation of a six-foot fence and installment of surveillance cameras were not completed. Ms. Zalman questioned the two Sub numbers under the Section for the two items that were not completed. Director Stone replied the six-foot fence was Sub-section B under the Agreement, and the surveillance cameras was Sub-Section F. Director Stone indicated everything discussed and their failure to comply arises from the Declaration of Chronic Nuisance made by the Chronic Nuisance Committee. Mr. Cafaro was present to explain the activities of the chronic nuisance on the property and Exhibit D, the composite of documentation of incidents that led to declaring the property a chronic nuisance. Mr. Cafaro will go into detail of each incident and state how it was brought to the Chronic Nuisance Committee and how the Committee agreed to the Declaration. Gregory Cafaro, Police Service Manager, stated this property has had seven nuisances and incidents between the timeframe of February 3,2021 and February 17, 2021. The seven specific incidents are all narcotics related and involved three separate units within the six-plex, which is located at 132 NE 12th Avenue. The most recent incidents involve a specific couple who have been living there for quite a long time. There were undercover buys on two separate occasions at each of these locations and there were subsequent search warrants executed on three different units within that six-plex. All those activities produced narcotics and there were also firearms on one of the search warrant, which were in the possession of a convicted felon. This property also predates this nuisance case going back to 2019, where the Chronic Nuisance Committee had just formed and Page 2 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 by lack of notification, those incidents were not brought to his attention back then, which is why a previous case was not filed. The previous cases were also narcotics related at the same address with the same two occupants involved in the most recent cases. Those two occupants have been living there for the past three years and have been involved in numerous narcotics arrests and search warrants executed at those same units prior to establishment of this current case. The cameras were one of the mandated items on the Agreement due to the fact all the narcotics activity that has taken place there over the years has not been mitigated or attempted to be mitigated by the owner. The fence creates a perimeter barrier around the property and prevents traffic coming from the rear and sides of the property, so it is limited to residential traffic to and from the front of the building where a four-foot fence was installed, which was required to create a barrier for walk-up narcotics traffic to this specific location; however, the locking system is questionable. Ms. Zalman advised that she wanted to focus on the two issues that were not done. The City stated under Section 413 of the Agreement, the owner must install a fence, six feet in height, on the east, west, and south sides of the property as indicated by *A in Plaintiff's Exhibit. She asked if Mr. White was presented a copy of the Plaintiff's Exhibits. Charles White, property owner, replied not to his knowledge. Director Stone stated that according to the Code, they need to establish why the property is a chronic nuisance, so although Mr. Cafaro offered to provide the information, they have to lay their predicate for what the basis is for defining property a chronic nuisance. If he could go in order and advise of the incidents that caused the property to be a chronic nuisance, then he is the proper witness to answer what was recommended and what they did not fulfill. Ms. Zalman questioned if a Notice was provided for this Hearing within 15 days prior and if so, if Director Stone could state the date into the record when the Notice of Hearing was circulated. Director Stone indicated the Notice of Hearing was issued by Certified Mail and posted on January 21, 2022. Ms. Zalman returned to the City's first witness, so he could establish why this property was a chronic nuisance and establish that Sub-sections 413 and 4F were not complied within the Agreement. Mr. Cafaro reiterated there were seven violations within a 30-day period, which would trigger the Nuisance Ordinance. He reviewed each violation as follows: • The first violation occurred on February 3, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-6391- 1, in violation of the Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24. It was a narcotic Page 3 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 related offense and there were undercover buys or purchases of crack cocaine made at Unit, B. • On February 4, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-6625-1, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24, crack cocaine was purchased by an undercover person at that location at Unit E. • On February 5, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-6391-2, which is a Supplemental to one of the previous cases, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24, undercover purchase of crack cocaine was made involving Units B and C. • On February 5, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-6625-2, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24, crack cocaine was purchased by an undercover person at Unit E. The next three are search warrants served at each of the respective locations as follows: • On February 17, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-8901, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24, a search warrant was executed at Unit B. The search warrant revealed narcotics, which included cocaine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, Oxycodone, and marijuana. • On February 17, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-8902, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-sections D24 and D25, a search warrant was executed in Unit C. During that search warrant, narcotics, which included cocaine, were recovered as well as multiple firearms, which were in possession of a convicted felon. • On February 17, 2021, under Police Case No. 21-8903, in violation of Ordinance Section 15-112, Sub-section D24, a search warrant was executed in Unit E. That search warrant recovered narcotics, which included cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. Units B and C were occupied by a couple with the last names of Johnson and Vest. The same two suspects have been living there dating back to 2019, and they were involved in previous narcotics sales, which ultimately resulted in search warrants being served on those units in 2019. That would establish that the owner had some knowledge that there was criminal activity being conducted in and around those apartments by the occupants, who were the subjects of search warrants and narcotics purchases in 2021, which were the trigger incidents in this case. As far as security requirements for the property, a survey was conducted and recommendations were made and approved by the Chronic Nuisance Committee, which included fencing on all four sides, the south, east, and west side required a six-foot fence to be erected on the property and the north side required a four-foot chain link fence with a locking gate, which appears to have been installed, other than the fact it can be opened from the outside by reaching over the fence and turning a knob; it defeats the security aspect, but it does comply with the four-foot installation and the locking gate. Locking was upgraded, but the east, west, and south side fences were not done with permits according to Code. The security camera system, which could be accessed by the Police Page 4 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Department, was not installed and it does not appear there were any attempts to install the security system at that location. Ms. Zalman asked Mr. White if he wanted to ask any questions of the witness, Mr. Cafaro. Mr. White did not have any questions but noted that he had a lot to say. Ms. Zalman mentioned Ordinance Section 15-116 and did not think they have to establish chronic nuisance, she thought the only thing that needed to be presented under Sub- section C, is evidence that the Agreement or corrective plan failed to be adhered to by the property owner. There is a choice by the City to present evidence on the Declaration of Chronic Nuisance or the failure by the property owner to implement. She believed the only thing necessary is just presenting evidence that they did not comply to those Sub- sections. Director Stoner does not want to shorten this. The Sub-sections below Section F explain the type of Order that can be entered, it says the Order shall indicate a Declaration that the property is a chronic nuisance. Ms. Zalman stated her Sub-sections ended at C and reviewed what was provided. She was happy this was brought to her attention and noted this all needs to be in the record to enter the Order, which, according to F1, would include the findings and facts establishing the pattern of nuisance activity in the violation of this article. She mentioned if an Order is established, what needs to be written in the Order, and what the City is putting on the evidence listed. Once the City finishes presenting their case, Mr. White will have a chance to speak. Director Stoner advised the City is done. Ms. Zalman indicated that her decision focuses on two Sub-sections that have been put into evidence that have not been complied with, which is 4B and 4F. Mr. White commented that he read the document. Ms. Zalman stated the purpose of this Hearing is to see if this Agreement has been complied with. Mr. White advised the way he reads the document, there are four main issues that needed to be complied with; a fence, security lighting, a contract that needed to be signed with the Boynton Beach Police Department, and cameras. The fencing is complete, the security lights are complete, and the contract has been signed with the Boynton Beach Police Department, so 75% of the items are complete. The only thing that is incomplete are the cameras. He provided a current picture. Page 5 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Ms. Zalman clarified that in Mr. White's testimony, he is saying Sub-section F, the cameras, is the only thing that has not been done. Mr. White stated he has been working diligently getting this done during a pandemic. Most of those pictures were taken a year ago; the property has been cleaned up. This entire case by the City is an attempt to fix a problem that was fixed the moment the Police Department finally, after many attempts, removed the couple who was allegedly doing illegal activities. It is important to understand that the Police Department knew about this couple for years; they would arrest them, lock them up for two days, and return them to the apartment; this happened multiple times. Ms. Zalman asked if Mr. White considers himself a landlord of the tenants or the landlord who collects the rent. Mr. White replied he is the landlord. Ms. Zalman questioned if Mr.White ever considered hiring an attorney to evict the tenants or to find them in default for criminal activity. Mr. White commented that he is not Law Enforcement; he pays his taxes to help the Law Enforcement officials do their work. Ms. Zalman asked if he ever considered filing his own civil action outside of criminal. Mr. White replied no. The Boynton Beach Police Department is acting as if this is a building full of drug dealers. There was one couple in one of the apartments who was allegedly selling drugs. The City of Boynton Beach Police Department knew about these individuals for years and did nothing or at least were inept when they did. To the best of his knowledge, the individual worked in construction; he is not Law Enforcement, and it is not his job to determine whether someone is a the setter or a drug dealer. Ms. Zalman stated she did not know if the leases state the tenant must be in compliance with all Florida laws in which case, he has his own right of eviction against the tenants if they are not complying. Mr. White indicated he is not an attorney. A lot of this came to a head during the pandemic when there was an eviction moratorium, and the Courts were closed; eviction was not an option. Ms. Zalman advised evictions were never stopped; they were stopped for certain reasons, such as economic and COVID, but they were always going forward. Her question was if he was pursuing it civically through eviction or otherwise against the tenant. Page 6 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Mr. White replied no. He kept expecting the Boynton Beach Police Department to get the job done. In 2017, he met with the City of Boynton Beach Police Department, signed a lot of paperwork in an effort to "clean up the neighborhood" and allowed them complete access to the property, and "No Trespassing" signs were posted. He was willing to help, and they did nothing other than perpetually lock up Mr. Johnson and set him free. He wanted this to be resolved and thought the Police Department was on the job. Once they finally removed Mr. Johnson and Katie Vest, the problem has been resolved, so this entire document is an effort to fix a problem that was fixed once the tenants were put in prison. The problem is solved and there have been zero calls to the Police Department regarding this property since they were locked up in the past year. He noted the Police Department came to the property multiple times, destroyed two doors and smashed eight windows, which he repaired at his own expense and did not ask for reimbursement by the Police Department; the cost was over $3,000. In his opinion, the issue has been resolved. The building is beautiful, it has been painted, all the doors have been repaired, there is a six- foot fence on three sides, a four-foot fence up front as asked, and the building is well lit with security lights. Regarding the security camera, he would like that requirement to be remove; there is nothing to see because the problem was resolved. He filled the building with nice, quiet, clean-cut families. Ms. Zalman advised evidence has been submitted that Sub-section 4B has been complied with and asked the City Attorney if there were any further questions for either witness or regarding the new testimony that has been added to the record. The City Attorney requested Mr. Cafaro provide Ms. Zalman with any information he has regarding the property owner's representation that the nuisance no longer exists, and if there have been any additional incidents or if there is still a concern knowing that these two individuals are incarcerated. Mr. Cafaro indicated there were three different people involved and arrested on these trigger incidents. One was the occupant of Unit E, who may have the same last name as Mr. Johnson, but he is a separate entity all together. There were three apartments involved, which was 50% of the rental apartments. There have been calls for service at this location, but not narcotics related, or anything related to the Nuisance Ordinance. Mr. White asked for the dates of the calls and what they pertained to. Mr. Cafaro stated that information was not available at this time, but there were calls for service; they may have been of a domestic nature. Despite the fact Police Officers have a job to do, he apologized for Mr. White's perception of what they do as Police Officers, but they arrest people, they do not force them into jail or keep them away from being released from the Courts. The fence is not complete; perhaps someone from the Building Department can clarify this, but it appeared some fencing was doubled up on some existing fencing, and he did not believe it was done according to permit or according to Building Code. For the record, he is no longer Officer Cafaro, he has been given a civilian Page 7 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 title within the Police Department and is no longer a sworn Police Officer.As far as camera requirements, they have done that same camera requirement for every nuisance property case they put together, it goes along with the CEPTED Assessment of the property, lighting, fencing, etc. Director Stone asked what CEPTED is. Mr. Cafaro stated CEPTED is a security survey that is conducted; the point is to assess a property or location and through environment and design, which includes lighting, fencing, and security cameras, to design a safe location or environment, which removes any obstructions from view from the street, hiding places, and potential dark spots. In this case, it was an open drug market for quite a long time. The City Attorney asked if CEPTED is crime prevention through environmental design. Mr. Cafaro replied it is. The City Attorney commented that Mr. Cafaro made a statement that they do this for all the cases and questioned if a blanket decision was made that every case needs this or if it was an individual analysis done for this particular property. Mr. Cafaro advised an individual analysis was conducted on this property as well as all the others and each one would dictate similar, but they tailer it to each property. In this case, the camera plan was put together to address all the entrance and exit areas where most or all of the drug activity was taking place including the front of the building. Lighting has been enhanced, which is a plus, but without fencing to establish a solid perimeter on the east, west, and south sides, and cameras to document any activity, which would make it much easier moving forward if in fact a questionable tenant would take up residence in that location. They do not get a tremendous amount of cooperation from the community, so they put in the tools necessary to provide a safe environment moving forward. The City Attorney asked if the tenant or resident living on the property had any bearing on environmental design elements determined necessary for a property. Mr. Cafaro replied not necessarily. It is based on incidents that have taken place on the property and in this case, it was narcotics. If it would have been something different, it might have been tailored differently based on the offenses. This case was triggered by narcotic related incidents, sales, and residences used as stash houses. His proposal to the Committee would be to put in a plan that would suitably address all activities that have already taken place at this residence. Moving forward, he thinks it would benefit any potential resident for security and safety purposes. Page 8 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Ms. Zalman commented that the owners put on evidence that Sub-section4B with the fence has been brought into compliance. She asked if they had any evidence they wanted to put into record or any witnesses specifically for Sub-section 413. Director Stoner stated the picture shown was taken by Officer Gayla Hill and it is a recent picture dated February 10, 2022. Officer Hill advised there used to be a wooden fence leaning against the fence, but it was removed. When she visited the property on February 10, 2022, the higher chain link fence was attached, and anyone could push through the fence and walk through; it is not fully connected and there is a visible line in between the fences. Ms. Zalman questioned what date the photo was taken and what Officer Hill was trying to establish. Officer Hill stated the photo was taken on February 10, 2022. She visited the property to see if it was in compliance. Ms. Zalman asked if compliance meant a six-foot fence was installed on the east, west, and south sides of the property. Officer Hill replied yes, and with permits. From looking in the system, no permits were pulled to install the higher chain link fence. Ms. Zalman asked if there was a six-foot fence on the property. Officer Hill replied no, the fence used to stop where the shorter fence was. There is a six- foot fence, but it was not done with a permit. Director Stone stated that was the testimony, but additionally, Officer Hill indicated someone could push the fence and walk right through it, so in addition to being unpermitted, it is not serving the intended purpose, which is preventing people from coming through that area. Mr. White advised there is a six-foot fence on three sides of the property, no one can push through it unless they want to be covered in blood from getting scratched. Officer Hill questioned the gap in between the properties. Mr. White commented that in looking at the pictures, he could not tell if the gap was an inch. He noted that he could have the contractor put in some wire ties to tighten it up. Even if someone scaled or pushed through the fence on the other side, the neighbor has another six-foot fence all the way around. The City requested a four-foot fence at the front of the property. Page 9 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Ms. Zalman advised she is focusing on the Agreement in Plaintiff's Exhibit B called a Nuisance Abatement Agreement. It has the name as Charles White as a signature on April 27, 2021. She questioned if he signed the Agreement. Mr. White replied of course. Ms. Zalman stated under Sub-section 4B of the Agreement, it states the property owner will complete the following corrective actions before July 1, 2021, and it lists A, B, C, D, E, and F. The two items she is focusing on is Sub-section B, which says the owner must install a fence six feet in height. Mr. White advised that a six-foot fence has been installed by permit, it is contracted. Ms. Zalman asked Director Stone if she had evidence that Mr. White pulled a permit for the six-foot fence referred to in Sub-section 4B. Director Stone replied they do not. There is a permit in the system for a four-foot fence for the front of the property. Ms. Zalman questioned if there were any written extensions issued to the July 1, 2021 Notice. Director Stone was not aware of any. Mr. Cafaro stated there was a slight delay in getting the camera proposal prepared by a vendor the City utilizes. Because of the delay in providing the proposal to Mr. White with the specifics, that might have extended past the original date, which is why additional time was provided to him. Ms. Zalman questioned when Mr. White received the camera proposal. Mr. Cafaro stated he would have to look in the package. Ms. Zalman commented that Mr. White testified he did not think there is a need for the cameras at this time. She asked if he reviewed the proposal provided by the Police Department or if it was something he was not interested in doing. Mr. White replied he looked at the proposal. He has not called any contractors, but he is somewhat familiar with that type of work, which is extremely expensive. He reiterated the problem has been resolved. Ms. Zalman asked if Mr. White rejects Sub-section F because it is something he does not want to do. Page 10 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Mr. White advised he was not rejecting anything; he was asking kindly. He has done a lot of work and the building is clean. Ms. Zalman reiterated she has a contract before her, and she is trying to figure out what occurred and if Mr. White has had certain obligations. She asked if Mr. White recalled when he received or reviewed the proposal from the Police Department. Mr. White replied he did not. It was a few months later and when he signed it, he said it was a lot of work to get done during a pandemic. Mr. Cafaro stated the camera proposal was provided to them from the vendor on April 2, 2021, and he believed it was made part of the Notice package dated April 26, 2021. From what he sees, there was no delay for this specific property; there have been some delays for other properties, so he had to check the record. Ms. Zalman commented that it sounds like Mr. White received the camera proposal before he signed the Nuisance Agreement. Mr. Cafaro stated that is correct. The Notice and Agreement will not be presented until every aspect of the proposal is available for service. In this case April 2, 2021, was the date the proposal was given to them by the vendor and then it was included with the package dated April 26, 2021. Director Stone stated the answer to her question is yes. The property owner is given a Notice and a proposed Agreement. They have an opportunity to then meet with City staff to go over the Notice and the proposed Agreement and discuss or negotiate before signing. Mr. White advised it was not presented to him in that manner. If he knew his time to negotiate was at the meeting with Supervisor Pierre, he would have done so. He thought it would be negotiated during the process. He is asking to skip the cameras, it is a huge expense, and it will accomplish nothing. Ms. Zalman thought they were following two different issues. This is a Chronic Nuisance Hearing to see if Mr. White has abided by the Agreement, but she is hearing testimony from him saying he signed and read the Agreement and knows what needs to be done. She asked if Mr. White signed the Agreement under duress. Mr. White replied no, but if you do not sign it the City starts fines; there is no choice. Ms. Zalman commented that Mr. White is a Commercial landowner and he entered freely into a contract. Mr. White replied correct, and he has been working diligently to handle everything. Page 11 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Ms. Zalman sees Mr. White is reaching out to the City, which is not the proper forum to do so. He is saying he signed the Agreement and sees Sub-section F. but does not think there is a purpose for it anymore and wants to renegotiate. That is a separate issue and is between Mr. White and the City of Boynton Beach to see if there is anything to talk about in the future. The purpose of today's Hearing only is that there is a contract presented and to see if it is in compliance and if not, the City wants to call this a chronic nuisance. Regarding Sub-section 4B, there is testimony that there is not a properly permitted six-foot installation of a fence, which was a requirement of the Agreement. She finds the cameras were not done and understands why Mr. White objects, but it was a requirement of the Agreement. She wants to enter a Declaration of Chronic Nuisance, but this Order will not be entered today. She is going to request the minutes and write a full Order establishing her reason why. Again, she is not taking Mr. White's right to communicate with the City. She suggested he work with the City going forward, that is always the best method. Procedurally, she finds that Mr. White is in breach of this Agreement and is declaring the property as a chronic nuisance. DECISION Based on testimony and evidence, Ms. Zalman requested minutes of this meeting to write a full Order establishing the reason why she wants to enter a Declaration of Chronic Nuisance. She found Mr. White in breach of this Agreement and declared the property as a chronic nuisance. She requested the City Attorney present a proposed Order for review to see if anything needs to be added. A copy will be circulated to everyone. The City Attorney clarified the Order and the Ordinance give the City the ability to go onto the property, ABATE the nuisance, and then charge the property owner for the cost. The City would speak with the property owner and discuss whether they can make the accommodations he has requested and that is when this discussion or negotiation would occur. Ms. Zalman explained the City is going to put in a proposal that if Mr. White is not going to handle it, the City is going to come in with their own vendors and take care of the repairs and bring it into compliance, more specifically probably regarding the fence and cameras. Before they do this, a meeting will be scheduled to go over this and perhaps there will be a proposal everyone can agree on where Mr. White will take this on himself; that will be the time to discuss a change of Agreement, a revision, or maybe there will not be one. The City is not under any obligation to agree to that. Formally, if no agreement is reached and nothing has changed, there will be an Order that the City can come in at some point to take care of it themselves because there is a written Agreement. Mr. White thought he understood, he is not an attorney. It seems overly complicated, and he is here to comply and to help. Page 12 Meeting Minutes Community Standards Special Magistrate Hearings Boynton Beach, Florida February 16, 2021 Ms. Zalman suggested Mr. White Google Section 15-116 to review the Ordinance. This is the next step. If the Agreement is breached, the City will move the Magistrate to say they want a Declaration of Chronic Nuisance and an Order. Item #7 concluded at 11:51 a.m. [Minutes by C. Guifarro, Prototype Inc.] Page 13