the code that exists. This is a public meeting, which means that no general public comment will be accepted, but each of the respondents and the code enforcement officers here tonight and any witnesses each of you call will be able to present evidence to me regarding each case and the violations of the Deltona city code that are being alleged. I am an attorney and appointed by the city commission to render decisions in these code enforcement cases to determine if a violation of the city code exists and what fine will be imposed, if any. If you are here for a Massey case, you might see that next to your case number on the agenda. That means that I will be determining solely whether you have come into compliance in a timely manner in accordance with the previous order that the special magistrate issued in your case and will not be reopening the case to determine whether or not a violation existed in the first place. Any decision I make this evening will be put into a written format in the form of an order. A copy of my written order will be provided to the city and then mailed to you as well. It is important to note that for any order I issue, you may appeal by sending a written notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of my order pursuant to Florida statutes section 162.11. The procedure of the hearing today will be governed by chapter 162 Florida statutes. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Hearsay is admissible but only to support other competent and substantial evidence. If you are a respondent, you will be able to testify, tell me what you think I need to know about your case, present evidence and witnesses. Your testimony will be under oath, so I will be swearing you in and this hearing is being recorded. For each case, I will call the case number and the city will proceed first. The city has the burden of proving that the code violation exists. Then you will be allowed to respond. For each case, I intend to admit the case file. You should have received a copy of that when you came in to the hearing this evening. If you did not receive it, please let me know when you come up. And I also intend to admit the PowerPoint presentation that is made by the city unless a specific objection is received. I will take the cases generally in the order that you signed in, first come, first served. I do have a number of cases here that have been withdrawn or continued, so let me go ahead and announce those. We have withdrawn cases. DEL 25-001, 2325 East Dana Drive, DEL 25-004, 236 Courtland Boulevard, DEL 25-005, 884 Fort Smith Boulevard, DEL 25-006, 2570 Coachman Drive, Fire 00125, 915 Doyle Road, Suite 107, Fire 00325, 111 Caribbean Street, Fire 00425, 1235 Providence Boulevard. And the following are continued cases, DEL 24-068, 2173 Clearwater, is that drive? I think drive. DEL 25-010, 878 South Atomore Circle, and DEL 25-015, 2114 Van Orman Drive. If you are here for any of those cases that I just read out, you do not need to stay, as those cases are either withdrawn or continued to the next meeting. I will go ahead and swear in everyone who intends to testify today as a group, which includes the code compliance officers. So if you intend to speak to me tonight, will you please stand and raise your right hand? Stand if you're able. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do. I do. Thank you. All right, we will proceed on with the cases. Okay, this is DEL 24-044, A through Q, Massey 2911, Alatka Lane. And I have that this is a foreclosure matter. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 24-044, City of Deltona versus San Rico Ridge, LLC. Property address is 2911, Alatka Lane, Deltona, 32738. Parcel ID number is 8130-74-420130. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance foreclosure, City of Deltona ordinance section 2-154, which states 90 days after the recording of municipal lien, the City attorney shall be authorized to take all legal action necessary to foreclose municipal liens on any real property. Corrective action for said violations to satisfy the lien and or the continuing violation on the property. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. The fines on this property have been accruing since April 8, 24, representing 296 days at $850 per day for all violations for a total of $251,600. The City is simply requesting that an order be put in to move forward with the foreclosure of the property. Okay. I guess my only question is the code section that you cited provides that the City attorney is authorized to take all legal action to foreclose. So what is it that you are asking me to do in this matter? To put an order basically to foreclose on the liens. Well, I don't have any authority to foreclose on the liens. Okay. So I don't, I mean, that would be a matter for city attorney to assist me with this. Special magistrate, thank you so much. So we are following previous city practice. Okay. Which is to bring this item to the special magistrate and request an order to foreclose. I share your opinion. However, and if it's your opinion that that order is not required by you, we will move forward. We've notified the applicant at their address on Sunbiz as well as the notices that were sent by code enforcement. So we feel ready to foreclose, but in order to comply with former city practice, we did want to bring this before you. Okay. I mean, I'm happy to provide, you know, a recommendation, I suppose, or authorization to the extent it's needed. Of course, I have no authority as a special magistrate to actually foreclose on these liens as I believe you're, you're agreeing with that. Yes. So that would be obviously in action in, um, in, you know, civil court to, to do so. So I, I personally don't, you know, special magistrate doesn't have authority to actually conduct the foreclosure, but, um, to the extent my recommendation or authorization is needed, I, I certainly can, uh, provide that. That is what we're requesting. We are ready to file in circuit. Okay. Uh, assuming tonight goes well tomorrow. So we're, we're teed up. Um, we just wanted to follow what had previously actions that had previously been taken in keeping with the practice of the city. All right. Thank you. Well, then, um, I'll just state for the record that I provide, uh, my authorization, special magistrates authorization to proceed with foreclosure to the extent that it's required by, by city code or, or not deemed necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-003 1730 Hillendale Avenue. Hello. That's my case. Can anybody hear me? Yes, sir. We can hear you. Oh, great. Thank you so much. I'm, I'm so sorry, but I was not able to get the video working. So I'm just now having fun with the microphone as well. Um, thank you. I'm the owner of the property and my complete, complete issue on my side where we did not do originally what we should have done. As soon as I get the letter from the court, uh, the code enforcement. Sir, can you just pause for a moment? Because what we do is allow the city to present the case first, and then I will, I will, um, hear from you. Okay. Thank you. So sorry. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Janice Pulasik. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-003. The city of Deltona versus Thomas V. and Judy Lynn Bamundo. The property address is 1730 Hillendale Avenue. The parcel ID number is 813-073-100-080. This is a violation of city of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the property international property maintenance code section 304.1, which states that the exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound and sanitary, so as not to pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Corrective actions for said violation is to repair, replace or maintain in good repair any exterior surfaces such as the roof, remove the tarp and obtain permits if necessary. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with property appraisers records. In addition, both notices were posted onto the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that they were taken. This was a proactive case which was opened on August 8, 2024 after addressing other violations on the property. I noted that the roof had a tarp on it. I spoke with the tenants who informed me that the roof was indeed leaking inside the home which is why the tarps were placed onto the roof. I also spoke with the property owner Thomas numerous times who ensured me that the roof would be fixed and the tarp would be removed. On September 7, 2024, the tarp was still present on the roof. Notice of violation was posted to the property. On January 11, 2025, the tarp was still placed on the roof. I then posted a notice of hearing onto the property as well as completed an affidavit of service. As of today, January 29, 2025, the property is still in violation. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Thank you. All right, sir, if you would like to tell me about your case, you can go ahead at this time. Okay, thank you, first of all, Magistrate, and my thanks to Coder Officer—can you hear me okay, first of all? Yes. Okay, thank you. And my special thanks to Coder Officer Janice for the help and the constant help. She had notified me way back when what we had to do was after the hurricanes, we had multiple properties that had problems, and we dealt with what we could. And as we were dealing with them, we had a prostate surgery that was done over the holidays. And that's when I called when I got the letter from her in January about the whatever that we forgot all about. It was my bad, completely did not move forward on it. When I got that, I immediately called her and said we're moving forward. As of today, we have—well, last week, we sent in the permit to get the roof redone, and as of today or yesterday, two days ago, I got a notification from the roofers that they've got the permit cleared and they're going to be able to redo the roof in the next week or so. Okay, so it sounds like a 30-day period for compliance would be acceptable to you. It would be. Thank you, Reg. Okay. All right. Is there anything else before I make my ruling? Nothing on my side that I can think of. Thank you. All right. I find the respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 28, 2025, which is 30 days from now. In the event respondent does not comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, and sorry, I'm admitting the case file and the PowerPoint presentation and I find the notices were properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 24-098, a Massey case, 1587 Brady Drive. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 24-098, City of Deltona versus Susco John Trust, John Susco Revocable Living Trust. Property address is 1587 Brady Drive, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID number is 8130-55030020. The statutory requirements for notifications of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and the notice of code violation being sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. It was ruled on October 23rd, 2024 that the property owner was given 60 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 60 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 per day since December 23rd, 2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total of a total fine of $1,850 over a period of 37 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. Okay, so this was a violation for the failure to obtain a permit? Correct. And remind me this was for? A window replacement. Yes. And is it your testimony that there is no permit has been applied for? Correct. As of today, no application is on file. Okay. Sir, could you state your name and address for the record? John Sesko, 1471 Edison Terrace, Deltona, Florida. Thank you. What would you like to tell me this evening? It's such a small job, I've called up a number of contractors listed in the penny saver, the little pamphlets at the supermarket, a friend of a friend. There was a fellow on my granddaughter's high school. No job too small. I call him up. I leave messages. I tell him I need to have a permit pulled. The tenant already put the window in. He's in construction. But anyway, I can't get anybody to do the job because it's too small. They don't want to be bothered. I leave messages. I don't get calls back. Okay. I mean, unfortunately, you know, we provided 60 days to come into compliance and that has not occurred. You know, I don't know if Mr. Ron has any suggestions that he could talk to you offline, you know, after the hearing or something about any suggestions for solutions for getting a contractor or a permit, any, you know. But at this point, the deadline has passed. So, is there anything else there before I make my ruling? That's about it. Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to find that respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case. And the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the code compliance officer to verify compliance. I'm going to, sorry, I'm going to admit the case file as well as the PowerPoint into evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next case is Fire 24-0054, Massey Case 2101, Capri Circle. Begin. All right. For the record, my name is Jory Bailey. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a fire safety inspector. This will be case number Fire-054-2024, the City of Deltona v. Grand Avenue, ECDC Housing, Inc. The property address is 2101, Capri Circle, Deltona 32738. Parcel ID is 813074420250. This is a Massey case. The statutory requirement for notification of this hearing has been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser record. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall and on the property at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence of this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I deserve on the day they were taken. This was initially a case for a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 5, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by the State Fire Marshals, which contains the Florida-specific version of NFPA 1, Fire Codes, Chapter 1.7.12.10, which states no construction work shall proceed until the AHJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards, and applicable permits have been issued. It was ruled on 9-25-2024 that the property owner was given 90 days to comply. The property owner did not come to compliance within the time frame and has been receiving a fine of $50 a day since December 28, 2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,650 over 33 days. The City is requesting that the fines... I'm sorry, for how many days? 33 days. Thank you. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day until such property owner has notified the City of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Okay, so on this case, NFPA 1, Chapter 13.1.9 was in compliance, right? So we're only looking at the violation of 1.7.12.10? Yes, ma'am. Okay, and that was for the installation of a mobility chair? Yes. Without a permit? Without a permit. And is it your testimony that no permit has been obtained or submitted at this point? Up to this day, no permit has been issued. No permit has been applied for. Okay. Sir, could you state your name and address for the record? Mark Nichols. Okay. The address 2101 Capri Circle. We did everything we could to get the license, and they sent us back saying we can't do it. So we had another company do it. Everything has been done. This is the inspector's report. He signed off on it, if you want to see that. And so it had been pulled a report, I mean a permit, but it was under some other name because I can't do it, or our company can't do it. We had to hire Deltona Elevator to do it. Okay. That's what they told us we had to do. Everything's been done and sent in. We're just waiting on the license. And here's the report so you can look at it. Well, so are you saying Deltona Elevator applied for a permit, an electrical permit from the city? They would have had to it. They're the ones that were hired. We hired them to do it because we couldn't do it ourselves. Okay. And it's been inspected by an inspector, and he signed off on it, and this is his report. All right. So, I mean, that's—I mean, we're just sitting waiting for the license, basically. I've been calling, and, you know, they've had this report since, like, the first of this month, like the third or the second, second or the third. Who's they? The licensing department. Florida license, elevator and licensing. The—are you saying the city's building department? I mean, that's the—the permit that we're talking about is the city building permit. Electrical. I don't know. I am not the one—they—my company hired Daytona Elevator to do all this, bring everything up to compliance, get it all inspected, and everything's done. So, like I said, we're waiting on the license where you get it at what it's called, Florida Restaurant and Licensing Elevators. They do all that. Okay. Well, that's not—that's a state entity. That is not a building permit from the city of Deltona. Okay. But I wouldn't pull the permit, so they had to pull the permit. That's what I'm trying to say. Well, but you're the property owner, correct? Well, I'm standing for them, yeah. Yeah. So, it's the property owner that is responsible for obtaining the permit for work done on your property. They wouldn't let us pull a permit for that, because we couldn't do it. This has been—this thing's been up for four years. The person that put it up, the company that put it up, Central Florida Stairlift, put it up, told us we didn't need a permit, because it was enclosed. Not everybody could use it. So, then— Yeah. I mean, a license from the state is not what we're looking for here to come into compliance. But they had to pull a permit to do that. They pulled it for us in our—I guess. I mean, I don't know. Well, the testimony of the city is that we—is that there's no permit that's been issued or even applied for. Would the permit be in their name? No. The permit would be under the address. Oh, under the address? Yeah. When I pull your address, there's no permit. That's something I would have to deal with her about, because she—you know, we can't pull it. I tried to do it. They wouldn't let me do it. Right. So, all I got to do is pull a permit, and that's it? I'm sure for an electrical permit, they're not going to allow you to apply. I'm sorry? All I got to do is pull a permit, and that's it? To come into compliance, you have to have—yeah, an electrical permit. That would be the—the contractor, we have to pull the permit, since it's not a residential property, it's—the contractor's supposed to pull that permit. And that's what I'm saying he did. Okay. You know, throw an elevator. They're the ones that pulled it. And our evidence is showing that there is no permit for that. Okay. Well, that's something I have to deal with them about, because she's saying they are. Do you have a copy of the permit? Yeah. Do you have a copy of the permit? I don't. I don't. I could get that. Yeah, if you could provide— Because I just thought—yeah, I don't understand. So they didn't pull a permit on that. I don't know how they got this sign-off from the inspector if they didn't have a permit. Would you like me to look at that paper that you're referencing, or— Yeah. He'll come and get it from you. Thank you. How does this inspector come out and inspect something that's not been permitted? Yeah. This is just—yeah, I mean, this is just an inspection report, but it's not the building permit that's required. So I— I don't know exactly. Is there anything else? I'm kind of lost on what to do. I mean, you—so somebody can tell me exactly what I have to do, because I've been—already tried to get the permit, and they said I couldn't because I can't get the license. Well, the only thing I can think to do is take the chair out. It's not operable anyways. I got the keys. You have to have keys for it to work, so it doesn't even work. That's just a thing sitting in the hallway. Sound, would you mention the time, man? Yeah, so you do have the option of putting it back the way it was, so removing the elevator, all the electrical work, the switch that goes to it. So that'd be a—I mean, we're going to spend a lot of money just to get that, you know. We've already spent a lot already. Yeah, well, again, your option—that's one option. I don't know. It's not up to me. The other option is to obtain a permit. I can bring it back to them, and then we'll find out what's going on, if I could get some kind of extension or something, another 30 days to see what I can do. Who can I contact between this hearing? That gentleman right there. Okay. I got it. Yeah. I mean, I've already ordered compliance by December 27th, and that already—I mean, we held the first hearing on this case in September, so— It's been in the works the whole time. It's like I tried to do it myself, and they sent me the money back, and everything said, I can't do it. I have to get a professional elevator company to do it. And that's when we hired them. Okay. All right. Well, I'm sure that, again, if Mr. Ron wants to talk to you offline after the hearing, he might be able to give you some suggestions. But, you know, again, what we're looking for is a building permit from the city of Deltona. So I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. I find the respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed is set forth in that order, and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance, and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the co-compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the co-compliance officer to verify compliance. I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint in this matter, as well as the elevator inspection report that was provided into evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. This is DEL 25-002, 2696 Derby Drive. Go ahead. Nice. My name is Janice Palasic, and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-002. The city of Deltona versus Michael A. and Darlene E. Nomina. The property address is 2696 Derby Drive. The parcel ID number is 813-032-720-040. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make an application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the deck, or the deck may be removed. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that they were taken. This was a reactive case opened up on June 6, 2024, for work being done without a permit. I was able to view the violation from a neighboring property. I saw workers building what appeared to be a deck around an above-ground pool. I then went and spoke with the homeowner who did state that they were in fact putting a deck around an existing above-ground pool. Upon research, it was determined that no permit was obtained for the fence, pool, or the deck which was being constructed. I advised the homeowner to cease work on the deck and obtain permit for all three things. The resident did come into compliance and obtained permits for the pool and the fence, however, was unable to obtain a permit for the deck due to needing engineer drawings. On September 21, 2024, after confirming that no permit was still on file for the deck, a notice of violation was posted to the property. On January 11, 2025, after confirming that no permit was still on file, notice of hearing was posted to the property. An affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, January 29, there is still no permit for the deck on file. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Since engineering drawings are required, 30 days does seem like it might be difficult to do. I have a letter from the engineer. Okay, hold on, one moment. I don't hear how long it would take. Okay, one moment. So it is, however, the case was opened back in 2024 and she was notified that she did need to obtain the permit for the deck. Like I said, I did advise them to cease working on it, which they continued and completed the deck. Okay. So that's why we did the 30 days because they did have, I think, ample time from June 2024 to be able to obtain the engineer drawings. Was there, so did you issue a stop work order or no? I verbally told her to stop working on the structure. Okay, ma'am, can you state your name and address for the record? Darlene Nomina, 2696 Derby Drive, Del Toto, Florida. Okay. What would you like to tell me? First, I'm going to go back to when she first came out. It's a long story. The reason it's not done is a story. I brought documentation because some people would think this is crazy, but I can prove everything I'm saying. I need a heart transplant. This is why it all started, because I don't have to be home. I can't be more than two hours away from the hospital. And forgive me for being emotional. I've been home six days. I just buried my dad. So I'm really emotional right now. So I apologize. It's okay. Hi. Your time. Janice has been very nice and coming out and talking to me, and I've been very honest with her. In the midst of it, the day that she came out to tell us, I wasn't home because my husband had fallen off the roof previously and was having surgery because he had internal bleeding in his arm and he had to reconstruct his arm. It had a massive problem. As soon as I got back, I told her, she came out, we met, and I explained to her. At the time, at that time, I explained to her that I was very ill and that I had to have a heart transplant, that my husband just had surgery, that my father was bedridden, living in my home, along with my father-in-law. The signs were on there. I had hospice helping me. In the midst of that, I got sick. She come out and I talked to her. I was trying to get engineers. I've been trying the whole time. A transplant is very expensive. It's $1,655,000. My chair's coming. He doesn't pay it all. I explained to her I'm trying to save for my medical, and just one prescription each month is $1,600. I had no idea when we were putting the deck up because it's a deck around a pool. I had no idea I needed a permit. There was a deck originally there, and the storm took it out and we rebuilt it, so I apologize. When they said the fence needed it, the fence was put up in 1992. I didn't even own the house then, but I got a permit. I got a permit for the pool. I did everything. I just had trouble with the engineering because they want so much money. In the midst of all this, and I've explained to her, my husband had a heart attack. My brother died. My brother died at the end of September. November 18th, my father-in-law had two strokes on the left side and the right side of his brain and just got out of the hospital last Thursday, and so it's since November. Since then, I was in the hospital. She knows because she came by. I was gone for 10 days because they had to put—I keep passing out because my heart—I have a defibrillator inside to keep it going. It's so weak. Then my father died on January 1st, and I literally just buried him on the 17th. I got home, like I said, Thursday, so there's been a lot going on, and they wouldn't even bury my father without paying for it, because this life insurance was under my mom's. My mom is a beneficiary, so I had to take from my money for my heart transplant just to bury my dad, so I'm trying. So I reached—I got a company who said they'll charge me $2,500, and they'll do the plans because I tried—I swear to you, I'm trying to do everything, and the only reason we did is so my kids can come visit and be there to see me and my grandkids. And when she said—I didn't listen when she said to turn—to stop, we called the county, and we talked to them, and I said, it's not finished, but I have small grandchildren, and if I don't finish the rail, if they climb up there, they're going to fall and get hurt. And the lady said, you just go ahead and finish it. And I said, thank you. So we just finished putting the rail. We didn't do anything else. We stopped. We just finished the rail up so that my grandkids couldn't climb up and get hurt. And so—so that's why we didn't stop when it wasn't—I wasn't trying to—but I called and told them. I said, what do I do? I've got grandchildren that come here and see me. So—but the company, this EPI Engineering, said as soon as I gave them $1,000 down, and I asked them to please send me a letter so I could show you, it would take them 10 to 12 weeks to get me the permit, and then I'd pay the other $1,500 at the end. I haven't been able to find anybody to do it cheaper than $2,500 to do a deck permit, and I have drawings, and I'm sorry. But I've done everything. I've brought the sketches. I've done everything, and I'm really trying. Okay. But I just can't afford any more fines. I can't—I can't even afford my medicine right now. And in Traster, it was $1,600 a month, and this was keeps me alive. But I'm so sorry. So, so sorry. No, I—I—I'm sorry for all the troubles that you've had. It sounds like you've been through a lot. It's crazy. It sounds—it really sounds unbelievable, but I can hand you—I literally have my heart transplant papers here, my husband's heart attack papers, my father-in-law. I just put my father-in-law under—under hospice now. He's under hospice at home. My husband's with him now, so that I could come here. Yeah, I—I don't need to see all that, but what I would like to see is if you—you said you have a letter from the proposed engineer, so. This is the part that says how long it would take him to get it. Okay. This is just the price it would cost. I don't think you need that. Yeah. Um, I mean, this is—and it's 10 to 12 weeks, um— From the time I give him the $1,000, and I can't give it to him until the third, because I don't get my—my—my social security until the third. Okay. Everything I had that I could get to, I used to bury my dad. All right. Is the city amenable to, uh, that extension? I have no problem with the extension. I do have one question to the officer. Is this deck in the easement? I can show you. I have pictures of it. Okay. I'll verify that one. Yeah, I thought—I'll verify that one. I think—I believe the pool is. I don't know if the pool has been moved. No, we have a permit, because they—when they—when the—when they came out to do the, um, survey, the pool needs to be moved six inches, uh, it's literally six inches in the easement, so it has to be moved, but we haven't moved it yet, because, like I said, my husband had a heart attack and everything, so we haven't had a chance to move it. But we do have the permit on it. But—but it's—nothing's attached to the house that's in the yard. It's just six inches with six inches to the left too far. The city's okay with the extension, ma'am. Okay. Provide them all the time. All right. So this is, um, uh, it says 10 to 12 weeks for them to start on the drawings. So, um, I mean, 12 weeks out, we're looking at the end of April. Um, I—you know, I—I'm—I'm amenable to giving until the end of May for them to, uh, actually complete the drawings and—and obtain the permit. That's—just so you know, that's—that is a—a long time. I really appreciate— Longer than we would normally grant, but I am willing to do that. I really appreciate it, because I was shocked when they told me 10 to 12 weeks before they could start the drawing. I was—I—I could keep looking to try to fund somebody, you know, that could do it quicker. I have no problem with that. Um, I've tried, um, the—the EPI and another company. I told Janice and Ann. I can't remember their name. They're a D-land. But they never get back to me. Okay. They just never ever get back. May I keep this paper? Yes, ma'am. This copy? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? No, just thank you. All right. So, um, I'm going to find, um, going to find a respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, uh, and that respondent, um, correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on, and I'm going to say May 30th of 2025. Thank you. Uh, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day, will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the enforced day-to-date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. So, please make sure you stay in contact, um, with Ms. Palacic and let her know, uh, the progress. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I've always talked to her. She's a very nice lady. Yes. All right. And I'm going to go ahead and, um, admit the case file and PowerPoint, uh, as evidence, as well as the submitted, um, sheet from EPI, uh, engineering, uh, with the estimate of time. And I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Next case is DEL 24-100, Massey case B and C for 514 Giralda Avenue. Um, how do you get to Massey's? Good evening. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 100 B and C. City of Deltona versus David Montalvo. The property address is 514 Giralda Avenue, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID number is 813524180. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. It was ruled on October 23rd, 2024, that the property owner was given 60 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 60 days and has been receiving a fine of $100 a day since 12-23-2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $3,700 over a period of 37 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $100 per day. Okay. So, remind me that about—so, violation B was failure to obtain a permit for the exterior wall? Correct. For the wall alterations, for the garage, and C was for the exterior door. Okay. Is there a picture of the garage again? Or the—sorry, the exterior wall? Yes. Okay. So, it was sort of both related in that— Correct. There was the wall that was patched in and then a new door. And the holes that were made into the wall. The wall originally didn't have the door or the A.C. that was punched for the A.C. unit. Oh, okay. Yeah. That was also— Correct. —part of it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And it's your testimony that no permit has been obtained for either? Correct. All right. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? David. Montalvo, 514 Giralda Avenue, Deltona, Florida. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Yes. I have followed the instruction given by me, to me, by the court. And I submitted a drawing. And they were rejected by the city because they were turned in with a digital signature and— Turned in with what signature? You know, I have a new one company. Instead of this stamp, they had a digital one. So they didn't accept it. Okay. So—and then they also requested to go to the health department to submit a permit. And they didn't accept it either because this was not correctly done. And it was done as a—it was done as a digital. So anything—everything that I turned in, it was rejected. And I told them to put a note on their system to let the court know that I was doing my chair, that I was there to comply as told before the time came in. And, um, after it was rejected, I tried to contact their engineer again to have him submitted me a new drawing. And he—since it was, um, holiday season, he has left the country. And he just came in, like, two—two weeks ago. And then he came along and he, um, um, got me a new print, which I took again. He gave me this yesterday evening. I'm sorry about that. It was not on my control. But I came again, um, today to turn this in, and they were rejected again. And he has—they—only they asked was to have the, um, the stamps on it. But when I came in, they found that I needed a permit from the health department. So I had done that, too. And, um, they, um, they received it. My application is right here. Proof of it. Can you pause one second? What is the health—I'm sorry. How is the health department involved with a door? Yes, ma'am, because inside the garage, a, a, um, a toilet was installed. Uh-huh. A long time ago because of the, um, COVID stuff. So they told me that since that was there and to just submit everything at one time. So they were requesting me to have the permit done. But since they received this, um, they, um, they need to be processed and then for them to put the permit number up here. Because when they came—when they came here, they said, well, this part needs to be filled out. But I went back again to them and said, well, I cannot give you anything because it just—it hasn't been submitted yet or approved for me to fill this out. But then they, um, they told me here that I needed the, um, a—let me see what it is—a, um, product approvals and insulation for the doors and the door—for the windows and the doors. They gave you things, uh, I come here, they didn't accept this, so they came after—and they should have given this the first time. They just told me this when they thought this was okay. But they said, well, now you need the door approval and the window approval. So that was recently. So I cannot do nothing about that right now until I get an opportunity to work with this. But I'm, uh, I'm, I'm working with it right now. And, um, so it's, it's, it's, I'm out of control. I guess I, I don't, I don't, I cannot do anything until I get the permit. I got here the permit also submitted and everything. They, um, they came and, and, and put the, uh, notarized it. So this is a permit here. This is one permit. And, um, I have another permit here for—let me just ask Mr. Rahn. And so the, the violation is not related to whatever bathroom or, you know, was submitted or was installed in the garage, correct? It was for the exterior violation. And it looks like more work was actually done. This is what we see in the outside. But the inside looks like it was added, uh, additional living area. Is that the garage? It's a den, yes. Yeah. Okay. But, I mean, that's not the violation. And in order to come into compliance, all he had to do was to get a permit for the, the exterior alterations. That's correct. That were done. And for this particular case, it's for those two, yes. So what I'm, I guess what I'm concerned about is hearing that he's being told, allegedly, that he, you know, he has to get, uh, the rest of the, the permitting done or it has to all be, you know, submitted together. I mean, I guess what I'm asking is, can he submit the permit application just for the exterior, you know— I, I understand your question. In order to stop the fines from running. Correct. That's up to the building official. I would have to ask him on that. Um, you, what it appears is more, there was more work that was done with no permits. Um, but that's up to the building official. I can't make that decision. Right. But I'm, I'm suggesting that there should be a way to kind of bifurcate that, right? And, and have perhaps two permits, um, because I'm concerned that the violations keep, you know, the fines keep accruing because of something else. Right. And this is a good case for, like, afterwards when there's compliance been met that we can look at reduction in fine. Um, yes, I can meet with the gentleman here. I'll provide my, uh, my card and I can speak to the building official tomorrow, see if that can happen. Okay. When was it that you, um, do you have the date that you came to the city then, and it was denied because, the, the building, it was rejected because there was no, uh, drawings or whatever, health department approval for the, for the bathroom? Well, the first time, it was back in October, before, before December, because I came here for the, um, violation, and they gave me, they gave me, I think, 60 days, so it got done between that time, but it was rejected because it had a stamp that, um, the wrong stamp. But it didn't look into anything else. They said, no, we can accept this. Right. So now I came back with, um, the new, um, new drawing with the stamp, and now they told me that I, that, that now I needed it, um, the, the door, since we're talking about the door and the, and the, and the, and the hole on the wall, the door, which is, no, it's a window, um, they need, I needed a, I need to go and get the, um, the labels to make sure they, to comply with whatever needs to be, uh, uh, uh, uh, according. Right. But when, but I'm asking, when did you come back, and the, the, I understand it was initially rejected because of the stamp, when did you come back, and it was rejected again? Oh, yeah, this morning. Oh, this morning. The engineering was in his country, he's from Chile, so he just came in from vacations, and we met again, like, two weeks ago, and he, he just came yesterday evening, he gave me this stuff back, but, again, when they saw it again, they didn't say anything about rejecting this one, but they gave me, now you need this, and this, and that. Okay. So, like I said, I got here, this two sheet that I applied, the permit, and there's two things that I, and they, um, in here, the office, they, they stamp it like a, uh, a notarizing, notarizing, so, but now my, my next step is to go to, and to look in, they're trying to look internet about that window, and about the, the door, if they are the ones that it's, to see the, um, product approvals, and installation instruction. Mm-hmm. They need to get that. Yeah. Beside the other thing that is not listed here, but regarding my case for that door, this is what I, they, they said I needed it. Okay. For the other stuff, I suppose that until I get everything else done, they're not going to accept anything else, because now it's like one whole package, which he doesn't know what it, because he, he hasn't been inside that, the garage, he's just outside, but they told me that, that since the inspector had to go in and look at it, just to take care of everything, do it, engineer, plan for anything, that way I take care of things before, um, if things are not done correctly, because that was done a long time ago with COVID, so they told me, just fix the problem, and you get, you know, and that way you don't have any problem with this, the county. Okay. That's what I've been doing. All right. I've been making, I put like a fan for fire extinguisher, which didn't have one, um, the ACs, uh, it has like a central unit, because they needed that to have something to, for that room, whatever, to me, the fire department, I think they told me that last time, so I've been doing, I did, I took care of everything that I was told to, but in this case, I couldn't, I don't have control about the drawings and what was next to follow. Yeah. Because, uh, I didn't know, until today, then, they even, even after they put the notary stab on it, they said no until you get, um, everything else done. Okay. Well, so, um, I'm, I think I'm ready to make my ruling, um, but what I would like to ask, again, Mr. Ron, is if you could, uh, maybe talk with him, you know, offline again, or, uh, and talk to the building official, because it seems that, uh, there, um, there are not, uh, there, there may be something that can be done in terms of getting permits just for the, to, to correct, regarding these violations, and perhaps, um, bifurcating that permit. Um, but yes, they still will need the product approval and installation instructions on the door and the walls. Yeah. It was rejected because they expected, they told me this just today that I needed that. So, I guess it's impossible for me to get this information immediately because I had to come here. So, and I need to do for that information because that door has been sitting there for a while already, and I don't know, he, they just told me, why don't you just go to Home Depot and get that little stamp they got there with that FL something, and they should know if it's that one, you know, is it, uh, it's according to what needs to be done. Yeah. Okay. The same thing with the window. Okay. They have the sticker on it. Just get information on the sticker, and you could maybe, you know, get this done. Okay. So, that's what I'm trying to do. My next step is to go ahead and do it that way. Besides the other things, I need to make rights for this to be submitted 100% correctly. Okay. All right. Um, I'm, okay, I'm going to make my ruling. I mean, I, as I, I've, I've ordered this, um, you know, gave 60 days already, um, for compliance. So, unfortunately, you know, I'm going to go ahead and, um, find that, um, you know, the, you didn't come into compliance within the time ordered. So, I am going to impose the fine. Um, and again, I, I hope that, um, you can talk to Mr. Ron and try to facilitate getting, um, getting the violations for the exterior corrected, um, and get the permit so that, um, so that the fines can stop running. Okay. Um, I, so I, I go, I'm finding that the respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought in compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the code compliance officer to verify compliance. I'm going to, um, admit the case file and PowerPoint into evidence and I find the notices were properly given in this case. I asked one more question. I'm sorry. Yeah. When I first went here, they told me that the fine was kind of $50. I don't know where the $100 came from. It's $50. It was $50 for each violation and there was one violation related to the wall itself and then one violation related to the exterior door. Oh, I got it. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. DEL 25-014, 3015 India Boulevard. Oh, it says 13. Okay. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turekzi. I am employed by the City of Deltona as code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-014, City of Deltona v. Elizabeth Velsquez. Property address is 3015 India Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32738. Parcel ID number is 8130415800110. Uh, 1-0. I'm sorry. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5 IPMC 3041 Housing Code ROOFS, City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5 adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 3041, which states the exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound, and sanitary so as to not pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Corrective action for said violation is to repair, replace, or maintain and good repair any exterior surfaces, in this case the roof, or remove the tarps. Obtain permits if required. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This is a proactive case that was opened on June 5, 2024, after notice in tarps on the roof of this property. A notice of violation was posted on August 26, 2024, and the property was given until September 5, 2024, to come into compliance. The property owner stated that she's currently in the process of litigation, had filed a lawsuit against her insurance company, and as of today, the property is still in violation. The city would like to request 60 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed. Until such time, the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay. Can you explain why it's still in violation? It looks like the tarps have been more or less removed. They have been blown off by the last hurricane, but you can see, especially in the back, there's sandbags and tarps. That's today. That was today. Mm-hmm. Well, I mean, I don't see how I'm able to determine whether or not the roof is in good repair or structurally sound if the tarps, I mean, the tarps are not there protecting the roof any longer. It's both a sanitary issue and a safety hazard. In case of another hurricane, the tarp might, you know, fly away or the bags might fall. That's the, basically, when it comes to tarps, the property does not come into compliance until the tarps are completely off. And as you can see, as of today's pictures, there's still sandbags and tarps, even though it's not covering the whole roof. Okay. I'll let the, um, ma'am, can you state your name and address for the record? My name is Elizabeth Velazquez and the address is 3015 India Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32738. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Well, I've complied with what I, with the manager. I've complied with everything I need to do. I pay the mortgage. I pay the insurance. The insurance doesn't want to pay, so a company came in. They're upset with the company because a company called JD Restoration came in, put the tarp up there because there was leaking water inside the house. Um, Chittison is the insurance company. I think they're either fraudulent or something's wrong because ever since we reported, it has been reported, they've been stalling. So now, um, Friday, I had a disposition with citizens and the attorney of, um, J.D. Restoration. It was more of an investigation about me, my, my employment and, uh, my vehicle. It was not so much about the insurance, the insurance paying. Okay. So I did the, the disposition. I called the lawyer yesterday. He didn't answer. I called him today and he, and, and, and I told him that we had received this compliance about this situation, about the roof. I called restorations a couple of times between these storms that we had after the date of, of, of the damage and they came and they put it on, but the next storm came and it happened a few times, maybe four times. So I called them the last time. They said, well, you know, every time we go, we've got to charge you. Um, you know, I told him, you, you need to speak to citizens insurance because I'm complying. I pay my insurance. That's it. I don't have anything to do with, um, their desires or whatever they doing there because I pay my insurance. I'm entitled for them to pay my roof and not charge me personally for the tar. I don't have to pay for the tar. I don't have to pay for the tar. I can't get up there and I don't dare send anybody that I know to go up there because I don't know, uh, how the roof is, you know, suppose they fall in the, fall down in the roof or they roll down. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna be liable. Okay. Um. So, you know, I spoke to that, to the lawyer today. His name is, uh, attorney Greg Rowe. He said to ask for more time. He told me six months. I don't want to wait six months. It happened in, um, 24. What is, what is it that you're waiting to do? Are you? They need to fix the, they need to fix the roof and the only way they could fix the roof is the insurance sends the check because I'm covered by the insurance. How do you do that hole up there? The storm did. All right. Um, yeah. Yeah. So, I'm trying to, to, I don't like that up there. I think it's right, you know. Can the tarp be, and the sandbags be taken down? I have to get somebody to get them down. I'm going to call them so they could do it because if they want to run over the roof or they want to fall in a hole up there, because I don't know how the surface is anymore with all these storms that we had, you see. So, I will have to call them and tell the attorney to do that because I cannot do it. I'm not climbing over the roof. I don't even get up on a ladder to go put a bulb in. Are, is, I mean, will it cause leaks inside your house? Yes. If the tarp is removed? Yes. Um, so, ultimately, even though I understand that, you know, you have, you are in a dispute with your insurance company, you are the property owner and you're responsible for, um, maintaining the house in compliance with the city code. So, while, you know, I understand that it's taking time, I think, you know, the best that I can do is provide you additional time. Yes. Um, to get that accomplished. I think the city suggested, did you say 60 days? 60 days. Yeah. Um, uh, I mean, I'm willing to extend that a little bit, but not much. I, you know, so. You know what? I think 60 days is fair. Yeah. They need to, they're getting, they need to get on it. You know? I can't, I can't, I can't tell you, express more. They need to get on it. Yeah. You know, they, they, they also have a responsibility with, with, with, with us that we pay the insurance. Sure. You know? And then we get a company that has to, you know, delegate with them or, or work with them. And they still don't move. Neither one of them move. Yeah. You know? I know my responsibility with the house because you know what? I maintain my house, not for me and the outside, but for my neighbors, because my house is an appraisal to my neighbor and I expect my neighbor to keep it the same way because I would like a good appraisal. Yes. You see? Yes. So I've always, you know, kept it. Right now I put that fence up. I've kept it. You know, I can't do more, but I don't have no pocket money to go up there and fix that roof. And if I had it, I'm not going to do it either. Right. Because I can't afford it. I live on social security. Mm-hmm. So for the city, would you be willing to agree to the 90 days? Yes. Yeah. I think what I'd like to do is give 90 days just to provide you additional time. But as I said, to these, if you go beyond that, then there could be fines that are imposed. So, um, my recommendation to you is to speak to, I guess, the attorney for the insurance company is who you're referring to and inform them that you, that fines will begin to accrue, uh, after, you know, the 90 day period. So, all right, I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. Um, I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock PM on April 29th, 2025, which is 90 days. Um, do I, can I get something written? There will be an order that is sent to you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the forced day to date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. Um, I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint into evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. So, ma'am, please stay in contact with the code compliance officer and let him know progress. Okay? I will. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This is Fire 24-0050 Massey Case 1229 Providence Boulevard. Go ahead. For the record, my name is Jory Bailey. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a fire safety inspector. This will be case number fire-050-2024. The city of Deltona versus ECA Bumego Providence Partners LP. The property address is 129 Providence Boulevard, Deltona 32725. Partial ID is 813005060010. This is a Massey case. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing has been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser record. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall and on the property at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This was initially a case for a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 5, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent addition of Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, which contains the Florida Pacific version of NSPA 1, Fire Code Chapter 1.7.12.10, which states no construction work shall proceed until the ASJ had reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards and applicable permits have been issued in Chapter 13.1, I mean, I'm sorry, 13.3.3.3.3, which states that where automatic sprinklers are installed, ceiling necessary for the proper actuation of the fire protection device and ordinance with NSPA 13 shall be maintained. It was ruled on September 25, 2024, that the property owner was given 90 days to comply. The property owner did not come into compliance within the timeframe and has been receiving a fine of $100 a day since December 28, 2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $3,300 over 33 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $100 per day until such property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Also, it has been brought to my attention that a permit was applied about a week ago. However, the permit is still in the review process and hasn't been approved or issued yet. You said that the permits — I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you — the permits were applied for a week ago? Yeah, there's been a submittal permit, a mechanical permit for — what is it, 129 — is it 129 Providence Suite A for the AC condensers. However, it has not been reviewed yet to this date. Okay, and then the repairs for 13.3.3.3 repairs for the ceilings — Yes, for the ceiling tiles. And that hasn't been completed? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Sure. It's Joel Scuiteri, and I am representing 1229 Providence Boulevard. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Well, first, I just — I'm wondering when we were given 90 days, because I didn't get — we didn't get any notice of any hearing for that, or that we were being fined 100 days. This is the first I'm hearing of it, so I'm not even sure when that happened. We were here — I think it was back in September — for a violation on a different address at the plaza, but nothing for this particular one, so I wasn't even aware that we were being fined. There was an order entered for 1229 Providence Boulevard. Is that, like, a hearing we were supposed to attend, or that just — that just happened? Yeah, there was a hearing on September 25th of 2024. And there were public — there were notices that were mailed to the property — to the address that's on file with the property appraisers. That's — that's why I'm confused, because I know we had — we had the other one that I had with — with you for that other one, but I was here — I think that was the same — I'm not sure the same — it was the same date, but I was here that day, and there was no other case for us. We didn't receive any notice of any other case other than that one at that time. I mean, we would have obviously came in for that, or — This is for 1229 Providence Boulevard. Correct, yeah. Yeah, we would receive the — you know, the notice, as we did for the last one, and for this one, we received the notice at our office and — Yeah. — and by email, and we did not receive that. Like I said, this is the first I'm hearing of there even being fines or that there was a hearing on that. Yeah. Well, I mean, I can tell you that the notices were given, and they're in the file here, so — Okay. — and I do have in the order that there was no one here to testify about this matter, so — I guess that's something I'll have to look into. I mean, I was here on that day, and we did not receive those notices, because we would have definitely been here, but — Okay. — I guess that's — yeah. — Yeah, I mean, again, if — if you need to, I'm sure you could — after we're done here, you could look at the file and see all the notices that were given, and there's also certified mail receipts, so — Is there? Okay. Yeah. All right, yeah. I definitely — Okay, so, anyway, what — what would you like to tell me about the matters and whether they've come into compliance or not by the deadline? This has been a little difficult, too. I understand, as the property owners were ultimately responsible for it, but under the contracts that we have, or leases we have with the tenants, it's technically their responsibility to get it done. I understand, ultimately, it's ours. But it's just been a real back-and-forth. This has been from a long time ago before — while we did own the property at the time, we didn't manage the property at that time. It was originally done by Winn-Dixie, which was then purchased out by Fresco, and it got dumped into their lab, and it's just been, you know, kind of — nobody knew what to do. And I believe what happened with the permit is maybe Fresco — there was two. There was one for duct sensors. Yes. And there was one for the AC coils. And what I believe is maybe they were not realizing that they needed to take care of two separate permits, and that's why it got so far until they'd only finally — because, you know, every time I get the notices, I press them, we send them letters of default, we tell them, hey, you've got to do this. And I believe they just overlooked the second one until recently, which they did file for this final one now. Okay. As far as the ceiling tiles, I've had our vendor out there on multiple occasions replacing ceiling tiles. I'm not sure if, like, some were replaced and others fell out. I don't know if all the pictures were always the same. Yeah. And I know there is an area, as you can see here, because I actually went there today because I was told several times in the past few weeks by Fresco's management team that there were no missing ceiling tiles. So, me being out here today, I went there and looked for myself. I did find a few, and I did find some that were up in an area that was very dark. Yeah. And it's above some refrigeration equipment, and it's just kind of — That's where most of the ceiling tiles are missing from. I can kind of see where they were not seeing that. You know? Like I said, I've had our guys out there several times to try to replace the tiles. I think it was just that we were not getting the correct area. Okay. So, it sounds like now that you've seen that, presumably that can be fixed in a short period of time. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Is there anything else before I make rambling? I mean, that's all. Yeah. I mean, I just would definitely like to reiterate that I'm pretty positive that we didn't receive anything on that. But, like you said, if you guys have receipts and all that, it's — Well, like — We just checked. It was November when you were here and that you were president. It was November? Yes, sir. Huh. So, I'm just wondering — For a different matter? Yeah. For a different matter. Yeah, okay. I'm just wondering why, how we missed September. I'm just not sure how that happened. I don't know. However, you know, I do — I mean, we have documentation in the file that it was given. Sure, yeah. I got it. So, you know, with that, I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling that a fine respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's entire order in this case and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the co-compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the co-compliance officer to verify compliance. I'm going to admit the case file and the PowerPoint presentation given into evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. I will just say that, you know, there are two different violations going. So, it's $50 for each per day. So, to the extent that you can maybe even correct one before the other, please let the code officers know because, you know, if you are able to get the ceiling tiles, for example, installed after a few days, that fine could stop running. Well, wouldn't the fact that the permit has been — is under-reviewed, is that not — No. And it has to be issued. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks. This is case DEL 25-007, 554 Providence Boulevard. My name is Larry Sparling. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-0007, the City of Deltona versus Kenya Rivers and Bernard Rivers. The property address is 554 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. The partial ID number is 813-012-060-180. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The action for said violation is to obtain the permit for the shed. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owners at the address listed on the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what was observed the day they were taken. This case was opened on August 20, 2024 for a shed under construction in the back of the property without a permit on file. A door hanger was left at the resident on August 25, 2024. A notice of violation was posted on September 9, 2024, and the property owner was given until September 19, 2024 to comply. A notice of hearing was posted on January 13, 2025. As of the day, today the property has applied for but not yet obtained the permit. The City would like to request 45 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $30 per day be imposed until such time the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Okay. Is there, do you know, when was it applied for, the permit? Just a few days ago. Okay. So it's just under review? Yes. At this point? I think engineering drawings are needed. Okay. And that wasn't submitted, engineering drawings? I don't believe so, yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? My name is Bernard Rivers, address 554 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Well, we did finally got the engineering drawings in and submitted them. They were under review right now. A review came back and we had to do a resubmission, which we did today. Did you say you did that today? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So we're waiting for approval so we could move forward. Okay. However, the engineering drawings were quite expensive to get done. And we still have a bit of work to get to do, according to the engineering plans, to bring it up to code. And I would like to kindly request if we could get at least 90 days to raise enough funds to make sure that we could have it brought up to code the way it should be. Okay. Is the city amenable to that? Yes. The time period is just for the review and pass for the issue of the permit. It doesn't require, the work has to be done, right? It does not. It was just a no permit case, correct? Right. Yes. Yeah. And I think we would stick to 45 days, which you requested. I think what he's saying is that there may be additional work that needs to be done on the shed. Is that correct? To bring it into compliance with the drawings? Yes. I'm okay with 60. Okay. All right. Because the permit will authorize that work to be done if there is any needed work. Okay. Do you see what I'm saying? I understand. You've applied for the permit and that authorizes you to make the changes. So, I think that I'm in agreement that 60 days seems to be sufficient. Okay. Because you're well, it sounds like you're well on your way to resolving the issue and you've already turned in engineering drawings. Okay. So, that's what I will go ahead and do. Is there anything else before I make my ruling? Nope. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock PM on, it's actually 61 days because otherwise it would be a weekend. So, it would be March 31st, 2025. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforestated date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. So, please make sure you stay in contact with Mr. Sparling so he is kept up to date on progress and getting the permit. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next case is DEL 25-012, 1627 Providence Boulevard. Go ahead. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as code compliance officer. This will be DEL 25012, city of Deltona versus Santorot and Burstins, LLC. The property address is 1627 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID is 813-07212-0090. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who attends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system. The installation of which is required by this code or to cause any such work to be done shall first make an application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the windows frame replacement. The statutory requirement for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing. Notice of code violation was set, certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraises record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. This product case was started on October 15 while conducting my re-inspections for the violations at this property. I noticed the windows and frame were replaced and no permit were on file. Notice of violation were issued on October 29. Notice of hearing was posted on the property on January 12. On January 17, a permit application for their windows was submitted online. As of today, the permit has not been issued. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day for this violation to be opposed until such a time that the property owner certifies the city of compliance. Okay. Did you say that you saw the windows being replaced or? It was doing a re-inspection that in between my other cases that the windows got replaced. You saw the windows being replaced? The frames. Okay. Okay. And I'm sorry, can you repeat the recommendation on the amount of time in the fine? 30 days or $25 per day. Okay. Ma'am, can you state your name and address for the record? Yeah. My name is Maria Rodriguez, 1627 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Yeah. So, we buy the house. When we buy the house, the windows were broken. So, with the construction company, they were supposed to submit the premises. The permit was submitted on January 17, 25. So, moving forward, I mean, because we buy the house to do some renewing and, of course, to sell it. Moving forward, we will be definitely beforehand, instead of doing any renovation, submit the premises. But, yeah, we applied on January 25 for it. Okay. I mean, January 17 for it. Applied on January 17, but it hasn't been issued yet. Yeah. Correct. All right. So, do you believe that 30 days will be sufficient for you to come into compliance and get the permit? Yes. Okay. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? Okay. I'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 28, 2025, which is 30 days. In the event, respondent does not comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. Okay. I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next case is DEL 25-008, 864 Radcliffe Street. Rock Hill. What's that? Rock Hill Street. Okay. Radcliffe or? Rock Hill. Rock Hill. Rock Hill. Rock Hill. Do you have 25011? No. Oh. No. I have 25-008. Yeah. That's not it. What? Yeah. What's this one? Is that one just... We're not... Okay. Okay. All right. Never mind. We're going to do DEL 25-011, 1384 Rock Hill Street. Thank you. I'm like, I can read. Okay. Wait. It's definitely not Rock Hill. All right. Okay. All right. All right. Go ahead. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-011, City of Deltona v. Diana Crockett Trust and Diana Crockett Revocable Trust, 1117-2022. Property address is 1384 Rock Hill Street, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID is 813-0301-801-12. I'm sorry. I'm going to start that over. 813-0301-80120. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordnance Section 18-3 adopted in the latest edition of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for said violation is attaining the permit for the addition to the rear of the house. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraises record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. This case was started as a complaint on July 25th, 2024 for the addition to the rear of the house. On August 1st, I spoke with the mail that was working on the addition and advised them that the permit was needed. On September 24th, the permit application was submitted. On October 29th, the permit was reviewed and required to resubmit with some corrections. Last week, I received a phone call from the husband of the property owner and he stated he and his attorney has been in the process of getting the contractor to get those corrections made so the permit can be issued. As of today, those corrections to the permit has not been submitted to the building department. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into complaints a fine of $25 per day for this violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Okay. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Good evening, Your Honor. My name is Rafael Iboroto, 1384 Rockham Street, the Donna, Florida 32225. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? What happened was we submitted at a porch on the back of the house and it was—the wood was rotten and the ceiling, the roof was a plastic and was broken and all the water was coming. So I called the city once and I asked if I could replace that for a new thing, just replacing the thing. They told me yes. But at the end, that was never submitted to the—before we got the house, that was never—it was done illegally. So I thought that WGS replacing whatever was rotting the wood, it was going to be okay, because I called and at the end it was—it came out like I have to do an issue. So right away we went and paid for the drawings. It took us like two months to get the drawings. And then on September 24th we took the drawings to the city. They approved the drawing and everything was fine, the windows, everything. And then when Mr. Chad Tate, which is an assistant building officer, he went to see what I was—what I was doing, he noticed that the people who made our drawings, they made a copy and paste that there were a lot of things on her drawing that it was not related to or draw—to what we were doing. So since then, since that—since that day, I had an approval letter from—that everything was correct by the—what I was doing, it was approved, but I need those corrections on the drawing, take off everything that it was not related to or sketch, you know? Yeah. So we—we were dealing since October 29th with this company and we have to hire a lawyer and everything to get those, um, revised— The corrections. The corrections. The corrections. And suddenly, St. Scott, we got it yesterday in the afternoon. I have the proof here of the—of the new drawings. Oh, you did receive the corrections yesterday? The corrections. The corrections we received yesterday are here. I also have the email and the thing on the—on the phone. Did you say that you did hire a lawyer? Well, we have to—a friend of mine, which is a lawyer, he—he was calling then and trying to—oh, they told us it's going to be like three or four months before we get it because we're busy and this is, uh, this is, uh, you know, this company— Yeah. —how they are and it took—it took us since October 29th until yesterday to get the corrections of the— Okay. —of the—so we're planning to take, uh, the corrections between tomorrow and Monday. Okay. Uh, and I guess everything—okay. Okay. Yes, we're, um, I mean, this would give you 30 days in order to get the permit and there would be no—excuse me—no fine imposed as, you know, as long as you're able to get the permit within the next 30 days, so, um, but, uh, is there anything else before I make my ruling? Okay. No, no, no, everything has been great. Okay. Uh, Mr. Jeff, he's a—a very good person, very—very understandable. Thank you, sir. He's a great—yeah. —great officer. All right. Um, I'm going to find, um, respondent in this case in violation of the city coda as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on, um, February 28th, 2025, so that's 30 days, um, and in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm going to omit the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case, so please make sure you stay in contact, um, with the co-compliance officer and let him know of the progress that you're making and get the permit. Okay? All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Um, DE—this is DEL 25-009-3166, Canby Drive. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sashan Gregory. I am employed with the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-009. The city of Deltona versus Alicia Maritza. The property address is 3166, Canby Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32738. Parcel ID number is 813-034-120-200. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-5 exterior walls. City of Deltona ordinance adopting the latest addition in the International Property Maintenance Code section 304.6, which states that all exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose or rottening materials, and maintain weatherproof or properly surface-coded where required to prevent deterioration. Corrective action for said violation is to repair the exterior walls and painted with proper treatment. The statutory requirements for this notification of the hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and the notice of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at the city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistry Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. November 21st, 2024, I saw multiple holes on the side of this property. I saw pipes exposed and the insulation coming through the holes. I attempted to make contact. I left the door hanger and my contact information. On December 7th, 2024, I arrived back at the location. I saw the holes still on the side of the property. I proceeded with posting a notice of violation. The notice of violation was sent certified mail to the address on property appraiser. I arrived at the location 10 days after posting the notice of violation. The holes were still on the property. No response from any parties responsible for the property. January 11th, 2025, I posted a notice of hearing on the front door of the property. On this day, I did notice pieces of plywood covering the holes on the property. I verified with our city's building official to find out if this would be enough to fix the violation. The city building official confirmed that the plywood would not work due to it not being waterproof and cannot keep animals out. And in order to get this property fixed, a repair permit would be obtained. After posting a notice of hearing, I did receive an email from landlord Alicia Maritza on January 15th, 2025, stating that she is aware of the issue on the outside of the walls of the property. And that she is looking into different quotes from different companies for this type of work. And she was working on the quotes over the holidays. She did choose a company that will be starting that week and wanted to know if the case could be avoided since she did not find out about the violations of the property due to her being out of the country. I did respond to Ms. Alicia Maritza and explain to her the information that was given to me from our building official and her options that was said. On January 22nd, 2025, I received another email from Alicia Maritza stating a contractor was already chosen and signed and notarized a permit and the application will be submitted before Friday. On January 24th, 2025, I verified with our permit department that no application was submitted for the repair permit for this property. As of today, the property is still in violation and per our permit department, no application has been submitted. Okay, thank you. And did you make a recommendation regarding the time for compliance and the fine amount? So the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. So, and I appreciate the explanation that the plywood would not be sufficient to correct the violation and the reasons why. I'm going to go ahead and find the respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 28th, 2025. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past C4 stated date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits and evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. This is case DEL 25-013, 2679 Howland Boulevard. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25013, City of Deltona versus Maria Esther Gonzalez and Alfredo Ruben Ponce. The property address is 2679 Howland Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32738. Parcel ID number is 81353350030. This is a code, this is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance violation section 18-3, no permit. Adopting the latest edition of the Florida building code section 105-1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the shed. Applications must be submitted to the City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. The structure must meet all requirements of City ordinance and be approved on final inspection. Contact our office with the permit number when obtained. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This case was opened on May 6, 2024, for a shed being built in the back of the property without a permit on file. The property owner was notified the same day of the violation and the corrective action, and a notice of violation was posted on July 22, 2024, with the property owner being given until August 7, 2024, to comply. As of today, the property owner has not obtained a permit and the property is still in violation. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Okay. I guess my only question would be whether or not you're going to need engineering drawings for the size of a shed. If so, I think 30 days may not be sufficient. I understand. They might need it. Okay. So, would the City be amenable to 60 days? Sure. Okay. And did you say $50 per day? $50 per day. $50 per day. I'm going to fine respondent in this case in violation of the City Code as charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on March 31st, which is actually 61 days of 2025. In the event respondent does not comply with this date, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the Code Compliance Officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm going to admit the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits and evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The next case is DEL 24-065, Massey Case 2121, Capri Circle. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I am employed by the City of Deltona as the Code Compliance Officer. This will be Massey Case number DEL 24-065, City of Deltona v. Saeed S. Shaw. The property address is 2121, Capri Circle, Deltona, Florida 32-738. Farsal ID number is 81-30-74-42-02-30. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the Notice of Hearing and the Notice of Code Violation being sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. It was ruled on July 2, 2024, that the property owner was given 10 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 10 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 per day since July 12-24. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $10,050 over a period of 201 days. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. Did you say 221 days? 201 days. 201 days. 201 days. Yes. And it was at—I'm sorry, can you repeat the amount again? The amount that is accrued? The amount was $50 per day, and the fines started July 12, 2024. And so how much has accrued at this point? $10,050. $10,050. Okay. So I think in the order it's stated that there—it's a vacant residential lot and there were—there was outdoor storage of construction materials such as cinder blocks and other construction debris, and that has been removed? Some of the bricks, some of the construction material has been removed, but the Connex box is still there, along with a lot of debris. This is all we can see from the street. Unfortunately, it's a big lot, so we're unable to see exactly— This is from today? This is from today? This is from today, yes. Okay. I see there's still—I'm sorry, go back. This one is also from today? No. This is the older picture. Okay. So like the cinder blocks there— The cinder blocks are gone, yes. The cinder blocks are gone, yes. But there's—I do see in the other photo from today that there's still— Debris in the back. Debris behind the box. Correct. Okay. Okay. I'm going to find that respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order, and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the co-compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the co-compliance officer to verify compliance. I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint presentation given today into evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This is Fire 24-0058, a Massey case, 152 Hummingbird Street. For the record, my name is Lisa Nadeau. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a fire safety inspector. This will be case number Fire-058-2024, the City of Deltona versus EOE-LLC-TR-TR-Trust. The property address is 152 Hummingbird Street, Deltona, 32725. This is a Massey case. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of co-violation sent certified mail to the property owner at the property listed with the property appraisers records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall and on the property at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This was initially a case for a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, which contains a Florida-specific version of NFPA 1. NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.2, all new electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, and equipment shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70 and Chapter 10.13.2.1, cut or uncut weeds, grass, vines, and other vegetation shall be removed when determined by the AHJ to be a fire hazard. It was ruled on 10-23-24 that the property owner was given 60 days to comply. The property did come into compliance with the provisions of NFPA 1, Chapter 10.13.2.1. However, they did not come into compliance with the provisions of NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.2 and have been receiving a fine of $50 a day since 12-24-2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,850 over 37 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day until such property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Can you repeat, I'm sorry, it was for the amount that it has accrued at this point? So far, it's $1,850 over 37 days. Okay, thank you. And, okay, so for this one, this was related to covers for exterior, excuse me, exterior electrical panels? Yes, that were replaced? Or, no, sorry, just the covers were missing? Or, can you, can you remind me? Okay, there's Units 3 and Units 1. One of the covers for Unit 3, which is the second one in, that was missing. They had one fabricated, it didn't meet code, the building official checked. Inside of 3, or inside of 1, I'm sorry, which is the one on the end here, the cover inside was missing, so they just put a cover inside. But it wasn't the correct cover. When it was touched today, it kind of just fell out. So that still needs to be fixed. And the cover on 3, which is the second one in, doesn't fit and close properly. Okay. And the inside, too, bubbles out a little bit. So it's not a complete contact. It still has a gap inside. Okay. All right. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? Okay. I'm going to find a respondent in this case failed to correct the violation of NFPA 1 Chapter 11.1.2 by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order. And will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance, and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code compliance officer. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance. And also, I'll state for the record that the violation of 10.13.2.1 has been corrected and is in compliance. I'm going to omit the case file and the PowerPoint into evidence as exhibits, and I find the notices were properly, excuse me, properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is Fire 002-2025-2820 Howland Boulevard, Suite 7. For the record, my name is Lisa Nadeau. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a fire safety inspector. This will be case number fire-002-2025, the City of Deltona v. Connie Biancardi. The property address is 2820 Howland Boulevard, Suite 7, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID is 8130-39090090. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent addition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by the Florida State Fire Marshal, which contains, sorry, this Florida-specific version of NFPA 1, Fire Code Section 1.7.12.10, which requires a permit to be issued by the authority by the authority having jurisdiction prior to any construction work occurring in a building. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the closing of the doorway or restore the space to its original condition. Statutory requirements for this notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On August 1st, 2024, I conducted a fire safety inspection at this location. During the inspection, I observed what was previously an opening between rooms has now been walled off. Upon research, no permit was issued for this work. The property owner was notified that a permit was required for the closing in of the opening and giving time for compliance. I conducted a follow-up or conducted follow-up inspections on 10-3-20-24, 11-8-20-24, and 12-23-20-24, and 1-3-of-20-25, and found that the property was still not in compliance and no permit had been issued. As of today's date, no permit has been issued for the work. The city would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay, thank you. And this is for what kind of a suite? This is, there's, it's a retail suite and a retail plaza, and upstairs it's like an apartment-type area. There's two more units that are upstairs, and this is like a little kitchen area, and the hole in the wall was made to go in for like an apartment living, which isn't up to code. So they went ahead and they just blocked in the door, but no permits for that. Okay, thank you. I'm going to find a respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on April 29th, 2025. In the event respondent does not comply with the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day if the violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits into evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Is there one more? Ma'am, there's another case on the agenda that has come into compliance. Oh, okay. That was for DL-25-008. DL-25-008? Correct. All right, so that's been withdrawn. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anything else before we adjourn? Nope. Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned. Thank you.