Sorry for the, a bit of a late start. I think there were some technical difficulties here, so we're going to go ahead and get started. I am the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for the City of Deltona, and I'm calling the Special Magistrate Hearing of February 26, 2025 to order. The first thing on the agenda is the roll call, so I will have all of the Code Compliance Officers introduce themselves. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Danny Ron, Code Compliance Manager. Sharon Shivers, Fire Marshal. Lisa Nadeau, Fire Inspector. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Supervisor. Tyler Russell, Code Compliance Representative. Todd Meade, Code Compliance Supervisor. Dennis K. Robbant, Code Compliance Officer. Richard Scherzer, Code Compliance Officer. Tasha Ann, Code Compliance Officer. Dennis K. Robbant, Code Compliance Officer. All right, thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Next on the agenda is my statement about how the hearing is going to run this evening. I'm going to go ahead and read this so I don't forget anything. We are here tonight because the City of Deltona has contended that there are violations of the Deltona City Code that exist. 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 instance. 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 tonight 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 and the PowerPoint that will be showed for your case. And you should have received a copy of your case file when you came in this evening. If you did not receive that, let me know when we get to your case number. But I will be admitting those into evidence unless a specific objection is received. I will take the cases in the order that you signed in, first come, first served. And I do have a couple of cases to announce that have been withdrawn. That would be DEL 25-021, 2957 North Huron Drive, and DEL 25-026, 3208 Kings Ridge Terrace. So if you're here for either of those two cases, you do not need to stay. All right, 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, please stand and raise your right hand. 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, I have no ex-parte communications to disclose, so we will go ahead and get started with the cases. All right, the first case is DEL 24-072, a Massey case, 2912 Salita Terrace. Good afternoon, Zachary Good, attorney for the city of Daltona. This is much like the previous foreclosure case that you saw for another property. We are simply filing past practice and seeking an order of the special magistrate that would authorize the city to continue with its foreclosure process. Okay, thank you. And so this is not a homestead property, correct? That's correct. And the case, the lien has been running for more than three months? Yes, that is correct. Okay, then I will issue an order to the extent necessary. I think we had a similar case last month, and I question whether it was absolutely necessary to obtain the special magistrate's authorization, but to the extent that it's necessary, I will issue an order authorizing foreclosure in this case. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. All right, the next case is DEL 25-025. This is 821 Cortland Boulevard. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Sashan Gregory. I am an employee. I am employed by the city of Daltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-025, the city of Daltona versus Daltona House Rentals Incorporated. The property address is 821 Cortland Boulevard. The parcel ID number is 813-044-260-140. This is a violation of the City Ordinance 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 water heater. Further, the statutory requirements for notification of this 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 on property appraisers records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to the 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 December 14, 2024, I was called out to this property by the previous renter for multiple violations. I was informed that the water heater was installed. I did check with our permit department and did see that there was no permit pulled for that water heater. On December 17, a notice of violation was posted to the property. On January 6, I did speak to the landlord, Madeline Markle, and explained that an after-the-fact permit was needed for the water heater since it was already installed. She said that she would speak to the company Rotorooter, which was the company who installed the water heater. On January 10, I spoke to Ms. Markle again, who told me that she pulled a permit for the water heater. I did verify with our permit department. No permit was pulled. February 7, I posted the notice of hearing onto the property. I also received, on that day, an email from Ms. Markle stating that she has been notified that the permit has been notarized, uploaded to our permit department. I did speak with our permit department to see if a permit was issued. Per our permit department, an application was received, but the license for the contractor was not up to date. On February 12, I received a call from Jeremy, a representative from Deltona House Rentals. Following up with the application, I explained to Jeremy what was going on with the license for the contractor. Jeremy stated that the contractor is having some issues with their business tax receipt and won't be able to get it renewed until March 1. I verified today with our permit department that there is still no permit issued. They are still missing updated license from the contractor and a payment. The city would like to request 30 days for this 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. Sir, could you state your name and address for the record? Yes, good evening, Your Honor. My name is Jeremy Hill, and I'm the homeowner and respondent. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Your Honor, in this situation, we had a water heater that needed a change out. We hired Roto-Rooter, who is a licensed, insured, well-known plumbing contractor out of Delant. They performed the assessment. They said it's emergent. We need to install it. We said, fine, I'm not a plumber. Subsequently, we were informed, okay, well, there has to be the permit, so they applied for the permit. The issue, actually, Your Honor, is a technicality, and it's simply that there's a difference in name between their certificate of insurance and their business. And when they applied for it, they were told those two things had to match. So they corrected that with the department DBPR, but the issue has been the delay for that to be updated, and we're being told around March 5th. But we have communicated with Ms. Gregory, along with the owner of Roto-Rooter, we've had 17 different communications. And if I may either approach or provide it to the bailiff, I have a copy of the permit that was submitted for and paid for as part of the record. If it's not already part of the file, I'd like to attach it as part of the file, as an exhibit. And, Your Honor, I think Ms. Gregory is correct. If what the Roto-Rooter is telling us, then somewhere in the next week or two, it should all be resolved for final inspection. However, I'm a little bit concerned because I don't have the ability to enforce that with Roto-Rooter. We simply, you know, from our perspective, Your Honor, have done everything correctly. This is, as I said before, a licensed-insured, very reputable plumbing contractor. We would assume that they understand the business protocol. So we have every intent of complying, and we've been very proactive with Officer Gregory. But we are concerned that we agree. I think an extension is a good idea. We would respectfully request that, Your Honor. But we're just concerned that there's another party to this for compliance, and we really have no control over that piece of it. Okay. Can someone grab that, the paper from him? And, Your Honor, once you review that, I think you'll note from the permitting department there are specific notes regarding the technicality on there. So that's directly come from the City of Deltona. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah, it does appear, I mean, these emails and, um, in correspondence does, uh, it's consistent with Ms. Gregory's, um, testimony. I don't see where the permit application is actually dated, but nevertheless, um, I believe Ms. Gregory's admitted that it was submitted. So, um, I, I mean, I'll admit this, uh, I'm, I'm inclined to give a little bit additional time, um, I'll do, what, I guess 47 days just to give a little additional time in case there's an issue with this. It appears that you're working diligently or, you know, towards coming into compliance and, um, getting, getting the permit. Um, ultimately, though, it's the property owner's responsibility to obtain the permit and, if necessary, you know, using another, um, another contractor to submit the permit application if this can't be worked out. But it appears that it's well on its way, um, of being worked out and, and hopefully it is. So I'll give a little bit of additional time, um, so that hopefully there's no issue. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Anything else before I make my ruling? No, ma'am. Okay. Um, I'm going to find respondent in this, in, in this case in violation of the city code is charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock PM on April 14th, which is actually 47 days because of the weekend. Um, so April 14th, 2025, 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, uh, verify compliance with this order. And I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint into evidence. And I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, and I'm, I will also, for the record, admit the plumbing permit application that was submitted, um, as well as, let's see, there were, appears to be three emails with five total pages, um, regarding the, uh, roto-rooter certificate of insurance issue. So, I'm going to admit those two as additional exhibits. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is DEL 25-024, 1264 South Seagate Drive. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-024, city of Deltona versus Luis Enrique Vasquez and Vasquez. The property address is 1264 South Seagate Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID number is 81-30-7147-0220. This is a violation of city of Deltona ordinance, section 18-3, adopt Florida building code, no permit. Adopting the latest edition of the Florida building code, section 105-1, which states that any authorized agent, any owner authorized agent, who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, 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 the permit for the garage conversion. 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 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 July 10th, 24. While addressing another violation of this property, I noticed that the garage door was sealed and the interior walls of the garage have been modified. An online listing of the property was found describing the garage as having been converted into two small bedrooms with AC. Several attempts have been made to make contact with the property owners with no success. A notice of violation was posted on February 3rd, 25, and the property owner was given until February 12, 25 to come into compliance. On February 3rd, the property owner came to City Hall to inquire about the steps and documents needed to come into compliance. However, as of today, no permit has been obtained and the property remains 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 that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. All right. So, can you explain in the picture what I'm looking at? Okay. This is the side of the garage. That's the main entrance, and the garage is to the left. There were some—the other case that was open was regarding a wall and disrepair, but you can see through that wall, you're able to see the inside wall of the garage, as well as the garage door that's been replaced by a fascia. That's not an actual garage door, and that's the listing. Okay. Are you saying that you could see into the garage to see that the walls were moved? Correct. From the outside, as you can see. From outside? Yes. Okay. Meaning when you can—when you looked into it, you could see, like, that it had been divided into, like, the two bedrooms that are described. It's been modified, yes. The side of the wall. As you can see, the front, the garage door itself, what you're seeing in that picture, which we could zoom in maybe on the picture. It's not an actual garage door. It's basically wood that's made to look— Made to look like a— Like a garage door. Correct. Uh-huh. Okay. But you could see into the inside of the garage— You could see the dry wall. And you saw dry wall in there? Correct. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. I'm trying to be specific here. Dry wall dividing the garage? Not into two bedrooms, but you can see that it's been converted into a living space, as opposed to the garage being the brick. See where the concrete, right next to the door? See, that would be— Yes. That would be a normal wall to the garage. Yes. So that space in there where you see the wall, the wooden wall, the plywood, that's not part of a garage, a normal garage. Okay. So when you say, but that's not dry wall, that's— No. Yes. But that's the plywood, the wall, the actual wall that's built inside the garage. Mm-hmm. Is dry wall. Yes. What's—it's—we cannot see the inside of the garage. Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at. So you could not see inside the garage? No. I cannot see inside the garage, but you can see that the wall's been added inside the garage. So the wall, by itself, requires a permit. Yes. The wall—meaning this plywood wall. Correct. Yeah. The wood frame that you see inside the garage, Mm-hmm. That's basically a separating wall that's been added to the garage. So that requires a permit by itself. Even if we're not—we don't have a clear visual of the bedrooms, that by itself requires a permit. Yeah. I mean, are there permits for that, the exterior wall? Of course. Well, you need a permit. You have to have a garage door. You cannot just seal—remove the garage door and seal it with a regular wall. Mm-hmm. So every time a garage door is replaced, it requires a permit. And in addition to that, you have the separating wall inside the garage. That requires a permit as well. Is the plywood wall—I'm trying to understand. Is the plywood wall separating the garage into the two bedrooms? Correct. Yes. It's a separating wall. Okay. Can we go back to the picture of the front door? Or—okay. So you're saying because that plywood wall is basically further into the interior of the— Correct. Of the garage—what was the garage? Correct. So the normal garage, you know, you would see the wall going all the way to that column. Mm-hmm. And so was a permit obtained for any of this work? Not for the repair. That was—that was something separate. For the repair of the wall. That permit was—was obtained for that. For the repair of which wall? The wall that's broken down. Okay. So there was a repair— So just that—just that. Correct. But not anything basically to the left of that space. Okay. All right. Could you say your name and address for the record? My name is Luis Vázquez. Luis Vázquez. My address is 12, 64, south, sigue in dry. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Hi. My name is Janelius Vélez. I'm just here to translate. Okay. Thank you. All right. What would you like to tell me about the case, then? What would you like to tell me about the case? I bought the house, so. I bought the house, so. I bought the house, so. I got a car. I was going to have an accident. And here are the documents of the person who reparated. The house has a room, a room, in the garage. That was already with permission for years. I bought the house, how is it? I bought the house with the room in the garage. Can we let her, yeah, I would like to hear what you're saying, but I want it to be, you know, I don't want it to be too much before you forget what he's saying, so. So, he was explaining that the house, when he bought it, it was, it already had the garage converted into a one-bedroom. It's not a two-bedroom, it's a one-bedroom. So, everything already had permits and permission for all the construction that was already done in the garage. Because the house, it had an accident, somebody had crashed into the house. So, all those pictures are like when it was getting rebuilt, so. So, and there's, uh. And this is all the paperwork of the person that, like, fixed the house when it got crashed into this? Okay. This is, these are, what, from the contractor that fixed the garage? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, City, do you have any response to that? There, as of today, there is no permit that was issued for the, the portion to the left of the garage, you know, the, the remodel, uh, of the garage. But, yes, the, for the repair, there's been a, uh, a permit that was issued for that. For the repair of the cinder block wall? Correct. But nothing else? Nothing else, no. Okay. Did you, can you explain what? Yeah, I just explained it to her. I'm, I'm going to help with this one. Okay. What he, what he's trying to say is that the work that was done inside the garage was, was there before, when he bought the property. Mm-hmm. Um, yo le explique que el trabajo que se ha hecho en el garaje estaba ahí antes cuando usted compró la propiedad. Uh-huh. Lo, lo que nosotros estamos diciendo es que eso, ese trabajo no había permiso, no había un permiso para hacer eso. Aunque usted no era dueño en ese momento que se hizo, usted es responsable de todo el trabajo que se ha hecho en la casa. And I just explained to him that, um, yes, we understand that might have been the case, but he's responsible as a new owner for all work that has been done onto the property, and no permit has, was ever submitted for that, for the interior work. Mm-hmm. Um, he's asking what, what's the solution to this is, um, is to get a permit. Aplicar una, una aplicación para el trabajo que se ha hecho en, adentro del garaje. Porque yo vine aquí y me dijeron que se contratara a un contacto, eh, para que me hiciera el plan. Y eso es, sí, eso mismo. So he was, he did come to, Para la ciudad. ¿Cómo? Hoy me enviaron este, el email con los planos que lo van a enviar para la ciudad. Oh, ¿usted tiene los planos? Sí, pero, eh, el, en FIF, pero lo van a enviar para la ciudad. Pero, este, ¿es los planos que se ha hecho en el garaje? Sí. Okay, también. So he just received, he does have a contract, and an engineer who has provided him documents for the work that was done. He just received this today. Okay. He just, he just asked it for more time. Okay, so you are working on obtaining a permit, um, for the work that was done in the garage. Ella está diciendo, Y si es seguro que usted está trabajando para sacar los planes para, permiso para lo, para que se ha hecho adentro, el garaje. ¿Es un ingeniero? ¿Es un ingeniero? Sí. Yeah, so it looks like the engineer just sent him the, the, the blueprints for the work that's being done, uh, at 4.55 p.m., just about an hour and a half ago. Um, so he's in the process of getting the permit for that. Okay. Okay. Then my only concern is, um, 60 days seems like it might be a quick turnaround, um, if we're just getting plans, um, as of today. Uh, so city, what, do you have any objection to doing the 90 days? We're okay with the 90 days. Okay. All right. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, okay. Um, is there anything else that we need to add before I make my ruling? Mr. Ron, can you ask? ¿Tiene más información? No. No. Este, si no, la ciudad, vamos, este, y si ella aprueba, vamos a pedir, cambiar de 60 días a 90 días para sacar el permiso. Más tiempo para, okay. Sí, el ingeniero está haciendo los planos para solicitar los permiso. Yeah, the engineer is still working on the, you know, the plans and the app, and the permit application. Okay. Okay. Um, so 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 May 27th, 2025. Um, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50,000 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the enforced day-to-date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. Um, I'm admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Um, so, uh, Mr. Ron, could you translate that? Yeah, translate that. Um, Um, como, sí, encontró que es suficiente evidencia que se ha hecho trabajo sin permiso. La, la juez, la, la, la cambió de 60, nosotros estamos pidiendo 60 días, pero ella da más tiempo, 90 días, para que saque el permiso. Y ahora la fecha va a ser el mayo 27. Y si se saca el permiso antes de esa fecha, a las 4 de la tarde, no hay multa. Pero, comenzando de ese día, una multa de 50 dólares cada día va a comenzar. Después del mayo 27. Pero tenemos 90 días, creo que es suficiente tiempo. Por tratar de hacerlo todo. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-022, 2580 Cortlandt Boulevard. My name is Steve Brockhoff. I'm employed with the city of Deltona. As a code compliance officer, this will be the case number DEL 25-022, city of Deltona versus Jordan, Luis, Alvarez, Payano, and Annette Marie Diaz Rivera. The property address is 2580 Cortlandt Boulevard. Parcel ID number is 8130-3232-0360. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 66-18, subsection A, which states that no vehicle greater than 10,000 pounds manufactures gross vehicle weight or designed to carry 16 or more passengers or requiring a commercial license, driver's license, CDL, of any endorsement to operate shall be parked, stored, or in any residential or agricultural zone district except in agricultural areas and lots of five acres or more. Statutory requirements for this notification of hearing have been met by the notice of hearing. Notice of code violation was sent certified mail to the property owner listed at the property appraisers records, and both notices were posted on the property at least—and at City Hall at least 10 days before this hearing. All of this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the code board clerk. I certify that all the photographs be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. This case began May 12, 2024, when I witnessed the flatbed tow truck on the property of 2580 Cortland. There had been previous cases for exactly the same thing, so I went straight to a notice of violation and posted it on the—and I requested a certified mailing. On May 13, I noticed that at the property they were installing a secondary driveway, I guess in an attempt to—maybe he thought he could park the tow truck on the side of the property. The crew that was on there, I made contact with him and said, look, secondary driveways themselves require a permit, so you're not allowed to just install them. Also, the vehicle, even if you put a secondary driveway, would not be able to be parked on the side of the property. And that was May of last year? That was May, yeah. The notice—or the compliance date was May 22nd of last year. Everything was fine, but on January 7th and January 8th, 2025, I noticed the tow truck was back on the property, so I requested a special magistrate hearing. And I documented the violation again on February 9th of this year. In at least the last two weeks, though, I've noticed the property has been in compliance. I have not noticed the tow truck back. So the staff requests that the property be found in noncompliance past the date it was originally—a compliance date of the original notice of violation. And then I'll be closed and be able to be readdressed if it—if the violation reoccurs as a repeat violator. Okay. And as of today, they're in compliance? As of today, they're in compliance. Okay. All right. Thank you. Could you state your name and address for the record? Hi. My name is Jordan Luis Alvarez-Pagano. I live in 2580 Collin Boulevard. Okay. Yeah, if you could speak into the mic. What would you like to tell me about the case? My English is a little bit—I don't know if he can help me. I'll stress later. Okay. You'll pull your tummy. I can help, too. It was kind of like an emergency for January 31st. and get off on February 1st, right? February 1st? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's the only time. He does have a spot for this commercial vehicle on Doyle Road, where it's usually parked, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So you're saying we shouldn't have any more shoes? No, my problem. No, I'm not parking there. Yeah. So, those days I was— I was coming home. I was coming from a time. Yes. I'm going to the one and the one, but I'm going to the one where I park it. I'm going to the one where I park it. It was just a medical emergency on those particular days, and that's why the truck was there. But he has a spot on Doyle Road where there are a lot of parked commercial vehicles there. Okay. All right. So, anything else before I make my ruling? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and find that responding in this case was in violation of the city code as charged and failed to correct the violation by the time specified for correction by the code enforcement officer, and the violation is now corrected and no fine be imposed. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation for which a fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. The next case is DEL 24-092, Massey Case, 1810, Hall Crest Drive. 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 24-092, City of Deltona versus Roberto and Fernando Bonilla. Property address is 1810, Hall Crest Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID number is 81-30-65-070-170. 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 on the day they were taken. It ruled on September 25, 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 November 25, 2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $4,650 over a period of 93 days. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. Did you say $4,650? Correct. And I apologize. What was the date of the original hearing? It was September 25th. Thank you. All right. And so, your testimony is that they have not obtained the permit for the addition to the home? Have they applied? Not. To this day, they haven't applied. No application. Okay. All right. What would you—well, state your name and address for the record first, please. My name is Fernando Bonilla. I live in 1810 Holcrest Drive, Tartona, 3275. Okay. Thank you. Can you tell me what you'd like to say about the case? It's been a wrong case. The reason is because I got really sick. I got a stroke. And I couldn't do all these things. Then, my father suffers from dementia, and he doesn't know what's going on. I'm trying everything. We tried to get a loan, and this person is going to explain to you everything we have done to complain. So, I still have problems talking, but he knows exactly what's going on. Okay. I'm sorry. Is this your father's home, or this is your home? Both. Both of—both. Okay. Okay. Your Honor, Sean Brock. Could you say your name and address, please? Sean Brock, 1810 Holcrest. Okay. So, I was here in the last hearing, and I represent the architect company that Mr. Bonilla was trying to hire to comply with the city. However, because of health issues and ownership issues of the house, they needed to get a loan to be able to comply with the city. So, we have been working with the finance company. I've been in contact. As a matter of fact, they're the ones that contacted me and asked me to be here with Mr. Bonilla again to ask you to just give us some time so they can get the money. Mr. Bonilla is on a fixed income. As he said, he just had a stroke, not right before the other hearing, maybe two months before the other hearing. And his father does have dementia, and he takes care of his father, and he's 94, 93 years old. So, a lot of it has to do with financials. And then, you know, the stress of piling on more fines. It's not as if they're not trying to comply. They are, and they have the people in place to try to comply. It's just, like I said, it's a money issue, and they are getting the loan. I spoke with a loan officer last night, and she wants to give it to him, but she wants to be assured that they're going to have time to do everything. I have, the contractors are lined up to do it. Everything's lined up. He's just waiting on the financing, and then the financing is waiting on what happens here tonight, so. Well, so, when you say the financing, it's to complete the construction? It's for the paperwork to come in compliance with. It's for everything. The financing is every bit of it. The soft cost, the hard cost, everything. They're going to do everything. That's what took a little while to get the financing for them, is because it wasn't just for the hard cost of the construction. It was also for the soft cost, the architectural and engineering paperwork, so we could— To obtain the permit. Yes, ma'am. So, that's kind of what's been the issue. Okay. Well, I've already given a time to comply, which was 60 days. Um, so, you know, I'm really not, uh, inclined to give more time. I mean, unless the city, do you have any, um, requests for me, uh, regarding that? Your Honor, can I say one thing? Um, I understand—the, the, the area that is at issue is fenced. Um, and if, if you would like, uh, a more secure fence on it so nothing—nobody can get back there and no kids can get back there to secure it until it can—until we can get on it, we could do that, if that would, if that would help the city, um, give us more time to do it. Because I understand that the, the main concern should be the safety of anybody that could maybe wander back there or, or, or wander into it and get hurt. Um, so, if, if it needs to be that we put up a more secure fence or a locked fence or whatever it may be that the city asks, then we could try to, um, do that immediately, um, if that would help by—get some time until we can comply with the permit orders. Uh, I do not want to give them more time. Yeah. There is a process once they're in compliance, and, um, there's a process for reduction in five. We will definitely, definitely entertain that. Absolutely. But I think the case has been going on for a very long time now. It's not something that just happened. It's been going on for a while. But I, like I said, once you're in compliance, once the property owner's in compliance, we'll definitely entertain the, uh, the reduction in fine process. Okay. Okay? I understand that. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I understand. But like I said, we are more, we'll be very helpful when the property comes to compliance and we'll help you, assist you with the reduction fund process. He is helping you out. He's telling us that he's, they understand and that when it's time for the reduction of fund, they'll take all of what you're saying into consideration. Yes. So, right. And as has been explained, the process is that, you know, we've already had a hearing and I gave a time to comply, which was 60 days. And so really all I'm doing today is determining whether or not you came into compliance within that time. It's apparent that you didn't. And I understand that there are a lot of family circumstances and things that have made it difficult. And that's why, but again, there's, there is another process for if, you know, once you do come into compliance, you can ask to reduce any lien that has been imposed. And, and that will come back to me for a recommendation. But it is ultimately the city commission that decides whether or not to reduce a lien. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. Um, I find 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 into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code compliance inspector. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance. Um, and I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint into evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. This is case DEL 24-068, a Massey case 2173 Clearwater Drive. Go ahead. Ready? Okay. Yes. My name is Todd Meade. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 24-068. The city of Deltona versus Thomas and Fayana Wong. The property address is 2173 Clearwater Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32738. The parcel ID number is 813045470050. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation sent certified mail to the property owner and address listed with the property appraiser record. In addition, both notices were posted at the 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 July 2nd, 2024, that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since September 2nd, 2024. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $5,225 over 209 days. Mr. Meade, sorry. I have in the order that it was August 1st was the date to comply. But you said the fine is— Oh, I had September, so I'm—to do my days over. I got—yes, August 1st, so it was 30 days. The calculation is wrong with the 179 days. That's correct. We can calculate it. I mean, I don't—I don't necessarily need to know that at the moment, but I'm just making sure you're aware. It said August 1st in the order. Correct. Okay. All right. Sorry. Continue. The city is requesting that the fines continue to accrue at $25 per day. Current—as of today, the property is still not in compliance. You can see over the course—I think it's in today's picture. So this item's still seen outside of the house. I don't think any—any considered. And then on this side, there's a screening up, so I can't technically see exactly what's there, but there is still notice of the same items still being on that side of the screened area. I cannot get a clear picture. Here—this is the right side of the house, so there's—in the back, there's a third boat, which looks to—appears to be on the ground. That would basically be one part of the stuff that would—is causing outside storage. It's not correctly there. But the other two boats are on trailers, and they are in the compliance. We're not talking about those, but just the items that—anything that's on the ground, side of the house, front of the house, that is part of the violation. Mm-hmm. Okay. So I'm just—I'm not really seeing, so—yeah, the—because there's a screen. Right. So it's taken on the screen is not a—I said this has to be a permitted thing. I don't know that you can't even really get a permit for that type of screening yet. The owner did share with me that he was in the process of looking into putting a fence on it because he had showed me a survey in January when it had gone to the property. I don't know if he's—he had not seen a permit submittal for a fence to basically help the situation, but as of right now, he's still in violation with the outsourced outs. Well, what in—what in the picture can you actually see that is—that remains in violation? A motor for a boat on this side of the house, viewing from my eyesight. Uh-huh. The camera is not really picking it up, but on the other side— And it's near the screen here? Yes. It's on the other side of the screen. This is on the left side of the house. So that—right, there's a tree. That is a boat motor. It's basically on the stand the last time I took the picture. Can you—I'm sorry, but can—you're saying that you can actually see through the screen to see that, or you're saying it's on the— I can see it above it. That's like right—right there. Uh-huh. It's a boat motor. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. And then we went back previous days, I think in January, they might get back into the 1718—go past—so not—not this vehicle, but there's stuff that's behind this that is considered outsourced. This was here. This has been cleaned up a bit and removed, but there's still items—because this case was meant to be heard in January, but they had to continue it due to illness, but—so— Okay. —these pictures are about that. Okay. I had written in my order that there were items in the yard, such as an old refrigerator, a bike rack, and a bike rack. Are those things still there? Not in front of the garage where they were at, so they've either been moved from the place yet. They didn't move those things. Okay. So there's the bike rack and stuff on there. Okay. But here's the boat motor that's now covered up— I see. —from the screen. All right. You'll see it through my vision from the truck, but the picture of the iPad did not give a good picture of it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sir, did you want to come up and speak on the case? Did you state your name and address for the record? Tomas Wong, 2173 Clearwater Drive, Deltona. Okay. Yes, what do you see is what is—it's over there. I cannot deny that. But I'm just asking for more time. This last three months has been very hard for me. I already got the surveyor to raise my fence, and I was going to get the permit for the fence, but they told me I had to call a company that has to check if I can dig the—to put the fence poles. I was going to do that, but as I say, the last three months has been very bad. I lost three members of my family. I had to expend the money from my fence to go abroad for the services. And as I've been talking with Mr. Mead, and I just want more time, that's why. And I tried to cover that with that single fence, but I know it's not the right one, but that's what I can afford right now. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know if—Mr. Mead, can you describe—I mean, if he were to remove the boat motor, is that really the only thing that's remaining that you can see that— There's other things there that I can specifically list. I wouldn't have that—I've seen it, and I've been from the—I think— All three boats are on trailers. All three boats are— All the bicycle—all the bicycle that I give to kids, I have to throw it away. You're saying they're on trailers? Yep. All three boats are on the trailers, not on the ground. Okay. I mean, it appears that there still is—I mean, frankly, what I can see in the picture, I can tell about the boat motor, but—so it appears that you haven't come into compliance. That boat—that outboard is on his stand, and that's the only way to work on a boat, outboard. It's on a stand? Yes, it's on a stand. It appears that it's leaning against a tree. No, it's on a stand next to the tree. Nevertheless, it's accumulating in the yard. So, I mean, it would need to be—maybe Mr. Mead can describe the code. As I understand the code, if you're going to store things outside, it needs to be basically up against the rear of the home. Correct. Correct. Or stored inside of the shed. Correct. Inside of the shed. So, regardless, it needs to be moved in order to come into compliance, and I'm certain that Mr. Mead and Mr. Rine could assist you with explaining further how to come into compliance, but it appears that you haven't at this point. And I've already given time to comply, so just like the previous case, you know, I'm going to find that you are not in compliance. If you work towards compliance and actually come into compliance, as I explained before, there is a process to request a lien reduction, which you could do, and explain some of the circumstances that you've had, because it sounds like you've had some difficulties. Yeah. And I understand that. Yeah, because all the thing I need is more time, because— Yeah. —I also have to take care of two person—two handicapped person in my house. Right. Well, unfortunately, I can't give more time, because— Okay. Oh, most recently, fine. Because the—I've already given time to comply, as has the city. So, at this point, like I said, the—what I would encourage you to do is work with Mr. Mead and Mr. Rine to gain more clarity about what—where things need to be moved to come into compliance, and at that point, you could request a lien—or lien reduction, okay? Okay. All right. So, 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, and I'm going to admit the case file in the PowerPoint from this evening, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is DEL 24-107, Massey Case 1691 Rim Avenue. 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 24-107, the City of Deltona v. Steven Robert Banjoe and Zachary Banjoe. The property address is 1691 Rim Avenue, Deltona, Florida 32-738. The parcel ID number is 81-30-36-230-210. 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 on the day they were taken. It was ruled on November 20, 2024, that the property owner was given 90 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 90 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 per day since February 18, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $400 over a period of eight days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. All right. Yes, I recall this is the case where the homeowner was part of the Army Corps of Engineers Blue Roof Program? Yes. Okay. Um, which is supposed to be temporary and we did give 90 days. So, um, but it appears in the picture that the blue tarp is still completely covering the roof. Yes, ma'am. Um, I'm going to go ahead and fine respondent in this case, uh, 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, omitting the case file and the PowerPoint into evidence. And I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Next case is DEL 24-105, 1072 Lamplater Avenue. My name is Bashir Turekzi. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 24-105, City of Deltona versus Perch Investments, LLC. The property address is 1072 Lamplater Avenue, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID number is 81-30-11-56-0100. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section 378B, security requirements, border windows and doors, which states that a secure manner shall include but not be limited to the closure and locking of windows, doors, gates and other openings of such size that may allow a child or adult to access the interior of the property or structure. And windows, doors, gates and other openings of such size that may allow a child or adult to access the interior of the property or structure must be repaired. Broken windows shall be secured by relazing of the windows and broken or damaged doors shall secured by newly installed doors. Boarding of windows and or doors shall not be permitted except as temporary emergency security measures. The corrective actions for said violation is to remove the boards and repair or replace windows and or doors. Obtain the permit if necessary. 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 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 were taken. This is a proactive case that was opened on September 15th, 2024 by an officer who is no longer with the City who has noticed a boarded window at this property. A notice violation was posted on September 30th, 2024 and the property owner was given until October 10th, 2024 to come into compliance. Several attempts have been made to contact the property owners with no success. As of today, the window is still boarded and the property remains 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, so we've discussed this code section before or this chapter multiple times. Is this a distressed property as that is defined in the code? No, it is not distressed. Okay, so then I can't find a violation of this section because it applies to distressed properties which are defined as having had a lease pendants filed against it by the mortgagee or it's subject to an ongoing foreclosure action by the mortgagee or the mortgage has been declared to be in default or it's subject to an application for a tax deed or pending tax assessor's lien sale or has been transferred to the mortgagee or has been transferred to the mortgagee under a deed in lieu of foreclosure or has been the subject of a foreclosure sale where the title is retained by the mortgagee or related party. So this chapter is intended to be used essentially for foreclosures that are being neglected by, you know, the bank that's foreclosing. So, I mean, unless you can present evidence of one of those things, I can't find a violation of this particular section that was cited. The only thing I'm having an issue with, like I said, this is not my case, but it seems it appears that there's a family that lives there and just in case of a fire or an emergency, as it states in the ordinance, you know, no one will be able to come out or get in in case of an emergency. In case of an emergency. That's the only thing I'm worried about. Well, there, again, there may be a different code section that would be applicable, but it's, it's not the one that's cited. Okay. So, um, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss this case. All right. Thank you. All right. All right. This next case is DEL 25-010 878 South at Moore Circle. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Joe Samar Jimenez. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-010. The city of Deltona versus Raymond Cueves and Luis Cueves Rosado. The property address is 878 South at Moore Circle, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-069-050-170. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 66-18 section a, which states that no vehicle greater than 10,000 pounds manufactures gross vehicle weight, or designed to carry 16 or more passengers, or requiring a commercial driver's license, CDL, of any endorsement to operate shall be parked or stored in any residential or agricultural zoning district, except in agricultural areas on lots of five acres or more. The corrective action for said violation is to remove the vehicle from the residential property. 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 appraisers records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at 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 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 originally opened by another officer on November 21, 2024, where the officer observed a semi-tractor cab parked on the driveway on this property. An attempt was made to make contact with the property owner. At that time, the officer also noticed the owner of this property had been cited twice before for the same violation of parking a semi-tractor cab on property. Several attempts were made to make contact with the owner until the next day, November 22, 2024. The officer contacted the owner by phone using the two prior citations that were issued in the past in 2019 and 2020 for the same violation. The officer informed the owner of the violation and corrective action, which was to remove the semi-tractor cab from the property as it is zoned for residential, therefore not allowed. The owner informed the officer that the semi-tractor cab is currently under litigation with the court and left it as that, stating that the vehicle will stay parked on his property, that he is allowed to have it on his property. A week was given until the next inspection. The officer noticed no change. The semi-tractor cab continued being parked on the property. Another attempt was made in calling the owner, which he was not happy about, the call informing the officer that he will not move the semi-tractor cab off his property and to not call him again before hanging up on the officer. On January the 4th, 2025, another visit to the property was made and the violation was still present. So a notice of violation was posted on the front door and sent out certified mail. I took over this case on February the 6th, 2025, and went by the location to see if the semi-tractor cab was still present, which it was. I took my photos and proceeded to post a notice of hearing the next day on February 7th, 2025. As of today, the property is still in violation of this code. The semi-tractor cab continues to stay parked on this property. The city would like to request 72 hours for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $100 per day to be imposed until such time the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay, so as of today, it is still present on the property? Yes, that's my today photo. Okay, thank you. I am, just give me one moment. Yes. So I'm going to find the violation. However, I mean, I think 72 hours is not necessarily a reasonable time. So I'm going to give, I mean, because this case has been going on for quite some time. Yeah. So, but, and, you know, it may be that they need to find a commercial lot, you know, that they can park it. So, I mean, I will give, I will go ahead and give seven days, at least that, I think that that's a reasonable time, gives them an opportunity to find another location to park it, if that's what they need to do. So, I'm going to go ahead and find that respondent in this case in violation of the city code is charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on March 5th, 2025. And in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $100 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. So, I'm admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. I will just say, regarding the fine, that I am finding the $100, and per the statutory factors, the fact that this individual has stated that they are not going to comply and have made no efforts to comply for quite some time, and as well as the fact that this is in clearly a residential neighborhood, and it's quite an eyesore. I'm agreeing to, because I find the gravity of the case to be rather severe, so I'm agreeing to the $100, which is typically not something that we do, but in this case, I will agree to that. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. Okay. Next case is DEL 25-015-2115, Van Ormond Drive. My name is Todd Meade. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-015. The City of Deltona v. Hoyt H. Yateman Estate. The property address is 2114 Van Ormond Drive, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 8130-31110260. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 303.1, which states that swimming pools shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and in good repair. Corrective action for this said violation is to have for the pool to be maintained and either drained of water or water must be chemically treated to remove algae. Water should be clear and sanitized. The statutory requirements for a notification of his hearing have been met by the Notice of Hearing and Notice of Code Violation, sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted at 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 a day they were taken. On August 12th of 2024, I responded to a proactive call for the property. I observed from the RP's vantage point an unsanitary pool. I posted a Notice of Violation on the front door and attempted to contact the tenant or homeowner. Certified mailing was sent out on October 22nd of 2024. I made multiple re-inspections to the property for the pool. No corrections to the unsanitary pool have been made during the course of this investigation. The pool was observed to be drained in January of 2025. Upon today's inspection of the pool is observed to be in compliance. So the homeowner is now in compliance. At this time, we'd like to note the violator as a repeat offender due to the case in a prior case on the unsanitary pool in 2023. So just at this time, the homeowner is in compliance, note as a repeat offender because we feel this has been a repetitive action by the— Basically, the tenant is not maintaining the pool for the homeowner. Okay. So you're saying—are you—I'm sorry, are you asking me to find that it's a repeat or— Yes. Yes. Okay. Was there an order from the previous case? A previous case I had started. They came into compliance when we got to notice of violation, notice of hearing, prior to being heard at that date in 2023. Actually, it was within March of 2024 when the case was going to be brought to special magistrate. They came into compliance and then— Okay. Well, then it's not a repeat violation. Well, it came back as a—again, the neighbor that lives behind the house has been seeing the pool go deteriorate. So the violation reoccurred here in late 2024. So we had noted as a second violation on the property. Right. But if I haven't—if there hasn't been an order finding that they were—that they were in violation, then I believe that I can't find that a repeat. So I'm just trying to find my—oh, here we go. Give me just a moment. Yeah. The definition of a repeat violation is one where a person has been previously found through a Code Enforcement Board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process to have violated. To have violated the Code or was—or has admitted violating the same provision within five years prior to the violation. So I—you know, unless there is an actual—an actual order finding that they were in violation, I can't treat this as a repeat. Okay. So, nevertheless, can you—so this is today, and it appears that they have come into compliance at this point. Correct. Okay. So, did you issue a notice of violation, or is this like—there was a—I'm confused. Was there a previous notice of violation? Yes. I had—in the previous case, there was a notice of violation issued in December of 2023, or excuse me, January of 2024. And then it came into compliance when he got to—was bringing him to special magistrate that came into compliance. And then, again, the violation then reoccurred here in December of 2024. Here is the second, ma'am. Sure. So, I'm seeing in the—in the file that there was a notice of violation issued on—yes, August 12th, and the compliance deadline was October 30th. And so, you're saying that they have—they—they—were they in compliance? Were they—did they remain in noncompliance after that date of October 30th, and they've just come in in compliance now? Just now. Just now. Just now. Because I—in January, I was out there to post because they were meant to be heard here in January. Okay. At that time, the pool was drained, so they still weren't in compliance. I brought the case here to this month's magistrate. So, just going to today, I found— All right. Excuse me. The pool is filled with water. It's clear. It's in compliance. It's basically— Okay. So, it was your—then it would be essentially a no-fine case is what you're asking. No-fine case. Okay. Compliance, and then we'll have to— Right. So, in the future, it could be a repeat. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Now I'm following. Sorry. All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and find that respondent in this case was in violation of the city code as charged and failed to correct the violation by the time specified for correction by the code enforcement officer that the violation is now corrected and no fine be imposed. Any violation of the same code by respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation for which a fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next case is DEL 25-017, 2641 Windsor Heights Street. Hello. My name is Janice Palacic, and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-017. The city of Deltona versus Victor Manuel Flores Torres and Osana B. Espinosa and Laura Marquez and Warra Warasi Antun. The property address is 2641 Windsor Heights. The parcel ID number is 813-032-660-180. 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 permits. The corrective action for said violation is you must obtain permit for the shed. 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 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 case was opened on September 12, 2024, when I observed an accessory structure shed being built on the property. Upon researching the property, I found that there was no permit on file. I spoke to the homeowner and informed him that a permit needed to be obtained for the structure that was being built. A door hanger was given to the resident with the violation as well as the corrective action. The homeowner did come to City Hall and inquire as to what was needed for the permit to be issued. He explained that he needed engineered drawings of the structure. On January 9, 2025, I noted that there was still no permit on file. I posted a notice of violation to the garage door. On February 7, 2025, after confirming that no permit had been issued, I posted a notice of hearing to the garage door and an affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, February 26, 2025, the property is still in violation and no permit for this shed has been applied for or has been issued. 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. I have a question. Why is this shed allowed to be, it looks like it's in the side yard. It is and I'm not sure they're going to even be able to get the permit for this structure. Okay. In this location. All right. All right. Um, so then I think the corrective action needs to be, uh, specified that it may require removal of the shed. They may not be able to obtain a permit. Correct. Um, so, okay. And you observed that this, you observed that it actually being built? Yes. Okay. Um, all right. Anything else before I make my ruling? No, ma'am. All right. Um, I'm at, and I actually think that I'm going to say $50 per day because again, this appears to me to be, um, I mean, it's, it's very visible from the street and a large, very large shed. Yes. So, uh, all right. Um, so I think the gravity of the violation is pretty significant. Um, I'm going to go ahead and find the respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged in that respondent. Correct. The violation before four o'clock PM on, uh, March 28th, 2025, which is 30 days. Okay. That was your recommendation. Correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, in the event respondent does not comply, but comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 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. I'm going to admit the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case and I'll specify in my, um, order that removal of the shed may be another option for compliance. Although I think it, it generally always is, but I'm going to specify that because, um, I'm not sure that the shed will be able to remain in that location. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, the next case is DL 25-018 A and B 3000 Macon street. Hello. Uh, my name is Janice Placic and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DL 25-018 A and B. The city of Deltona versus Isaiah Manuel Figueroa. The property address is 3000 Macon street. The parcel ID number is 813-032-850-270. This property is being brought before the special magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. Violation A. This is a violation of city of Deltona ordinance 18-5 adopting the latest edition of the international property maintenance code section 302.7, which states all accessory structures, including detached garages, fences and walls shall be maintained and kept in good repair in sound structural condition. Corrective action for said violation, repair or remove the shed. Violation B. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 38-114, which states that furniture outside must be designed to be placed outdoors or stored inside a covered structure. In addition, storage of materials relating to residential use, child's play, toys, firewood, brush, logs or any other material intended to be used in fireplaces or other permitted burning facilities shall be permitted only in the rear yard to the rear wall of the home. Corrective action for said violation must be properly stored or removed from the property. The pool or trampoline must be taken down or relocated to the backyard of the property. Statutory requirements for notification of hearing have been met by 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 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 on the day that they were taken. For case number A, this case was opened on October 25th, 2024 while responding to another violation. I noted a shed and disrepair in the backyard at this property. A tree had fallen and caused damage to the roof area. A door hanger was left on the garage door due to not being able to access the front door with the violation as well as the corrective action. On November 22nd, 2024, after observing that the violation was still present, I posted a notice of violation to the garage door. On February 7th, 2025, after confirming that the property was still in violation, notice of hearing was posted to the front door. An affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, February 26th, 2025, the property is still not in compliance. Case number B, this case was opened on October 25th, 2024, where I noted a trampoline and pool in the front yard at this property. A door hanger was taped to the garage door due to not being able to access the front door with the violation as well as the corrective action. On November 7th, 2024, after noting that the violation was still present, I posted a notice of violation to the garage door. On February 7th, 2025, after confirming that the property was still in violation, a notice of hearing was posted to the front door and an affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, February 26th, 2025, the property is still not in compliance. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day per violation for a total of $50 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Okay. Can you show me the pictures of the pool and the trampoline? The pools? Okay. Yeah. That's the front of the property? It's, it's the, yeah, it's the front. Oh, I see. And the pool is a little to the right of that trampoline in the front. Okay. And the code section says it has to be in the rear yard? It says it's supposed to be in the backyard of the property. Okay. Um, I did question whether a pool would be considered a, would be considered storage of materials related to residential use. Um, however, I do note that section 110 dash eight, two, seven, six, uh, subsection six, one, a provides that swimming pools are allowed in the rear and side yards only. So, um, this, uh, again, I'm, I'm having some difficulty here because this looks like it may be in the side yard. Um, and that's more, I mean, the code does provide that pools are allowed in the side yard. Okay. I mean, the majority of it is in the front of the yard. I mean, there is a section of it that is behind that front face, but not a lot. Okay. All right. So you're saying it's protruding, uh, might be the angle that I took the photo forward of the, okay. Okay. Forward of the building face. Yeah. The majority of the pool is in the front. All right. Okay. Um, I will go ahead and find the, uh, respondent in this case in violation of the city codes as charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock PM on March 28th, 2025, which is 30 days. And in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day for each violation will be imposed for each day. Each violation continues past the fourth state of date for a total of, um, $50 per day. 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 I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Oh, sorry. Next case is DEL 25-019-3332 Cortland Boulevard. Hi, my name is Janice Palacic. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-019. City of Deltona versus Omega R. Smith and Andrea M. Walker. Property address is 3332 Cortland Boulevard. Parcel ID number is 813-034-280-010. It's 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 a required permit. Corrective action for said violation is you must obtain a permit for the shed. Statutory requirements for notification of hearing have been met by notice of hearing and notice of code violation have been sent in the certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with 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 then 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 case was opened on November 2, 2024, when I observed a shed being built in the backyard at this property. Upon research, it was determined that there was no permit on file. I spoke to one of the property owners and explained to her that there was no permit on file and that they would need to go to City Hall to obtain a permit. She stated she would let her husband know and that they would obtain the necessary permits. A door hanger was given to the resident with the violation as well as the corrective action. On November 23, 2024, a permit was still not on file for the shed. The resident did come to City Hall on December 2, 2024, and spoke with the permitting department regarding the permit. I granted an extension due to them needing engineered drawings for the structure. On November 23, 2024, after confirming that there was no permit on file, notice of violation was posted onto the garage door. On February 7, 2025, there was still no permit on file. I posted a notice of hearing to the garage door and an affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, February 26, 2025, the property is still not in compliance. A permit has been submitted. It was submitted on the 25th, but it has not yet been issued for the shed. It did go through the zoning, and it is now on the desk of the building department waiting to be issued. Okay. A permit was submitted on what date, you said? Yes, the 25th, yesterday. All right. 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 a time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay. And you actually observed the shed being built? Yes. Um, it was more that it was after the fact that it was built. You saw that. You just saw that it was there. Yeah, it just appeared. Um, 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 PM on March 28, 2025. That's 30 days. Um, 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 inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm going to admit the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Last case is DEL 25-020 2936 Carmela Street. Last, last one. Okay. Um, my name is Janice Plastic and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-020 City of Deltona versus Joseph Anthony Noto. Property address is 2926 Carmela Street. The parcel ID number is 813-034-150-040. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-5 which adopts the latest addition of the international property maintenance code section 304.7 which states the roof and flashing shall be sound tight and not have any defects that admit rain. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace the roof, gutters, or drainage. The statutory requirements for 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 onto 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 case was initiated on November 26, 2024 for holes in the roof. On December 5, 2024, I went to the property and noted that there were approximately three or four holes on the roof on the left side of the home. After my attempt to make contact with the homeowner, Joseph, was unsuccessful, a door hanger was left on the door with the violations as well as the corrective action. On January 15, 2025, the holes were still present. I then posted a notice of violation to the property. On February 7, 2025, the property was still in violation. I posted notice of hearing to the garage door and an affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, February 26, 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 time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay. And did you say you've spoken with the property owner or no? Previously, I have because he did have a hole on the other side of the roof which was repaired. This time, I was unable to speak with him. Okay. I'm going to fine 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 March 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 forced day to date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance officer to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. All right. Next case is DEL 25-023, 2101 Kingswood Avenue. My name is Bashir Turkzi. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-23. The city of Deltona versus Elias Riverson and Teresa Quadros. The property address is 2101 Kingswood Avenue, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 81369-110100. This is a violation of 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, remove, 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. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain the permit for the roof structure over the front doorway. 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 one obtained. 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 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 is a proactive case that was opened on April 29th, 2024, after a construction project in progress was observed at this property with no permit on file. A notice of violation was posted June 16, 2024. Excuse us. Okay. Your Honor, if I may, I was just informed that the city would like to continue this case until next month. Okay. I will continue it. All right. Thank you. This is case fire 005-2025-2820 Howland Boulevard. Okay. 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-005-2025, the City of Deltona versus Condé Biancardi. The property address is 2820 Howland Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID is 8130-39-09-0090. Excuse me, sorry. This is a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Chapter 42, Article IV, Fire Codes Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent Code of the Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Violations A to E will be listed below in no particular order. Violations, sorry, violation A, NFPA 1, Chapters 11.1.2.2, unless determined to present an imminent danger, existing electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, and equipment shall be permitted to be maintained in accordance with the addition of NFPA 70 in effect at the time of the installation. Corrective action for Violation A would be to repair-replace the conduit that is not properly covering the exposed wiring for the exterior AC breaker box for Unit No. 1. Violation B is NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.2.2, unless determined to present an imminent danger, existing electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, and equipment shall be permitted to be maintained in accordance with the addition of NFPA 70 in effect at the time of the installation. Corrective action for Violation B would be to replace the missing covers on the exterior AC unit breaker boxes for Suites 2 through 7. Violation C, NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.2.2, unless determined to present an imminent danger, existing electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, and equipment shall be permitted to be maintained in accordance with the addition of NFPA 70 in effect at the time of the installation. Corrective action for Violation C would be to provide an approved cover for the exposed electrical wiring protruding from the conduit beneath the front sign. Violation D, NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.3.2, multi-plug adapters shall not be used as a substitute for permanent wiring or receptacles. Corrective action for Violation D would be to remove the multi-plug adapters that are being used on the exterior of the building between Suites 5 and 6. Violation E, NFPA 1, 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. Corrective action for Violation E would be to trim, cut back the tree limbs that are encroaching and growing over the building. The statutory requirements, sorry, for 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 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, sorry, any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On July 26, 2024, I conducted a fire safety inspection at this location. During the inspection, I observed the noted above-mentioned violations. I notified the property owner of the violations and given time for compliance. I conducted follow-up inspections on October 3, 2024, November 8, 2024, December 26, 2024, and January 3, 2025, and found out the property was still not in compliance. A site inspection today showed that none of the above violations have been corrected. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of $50 per violation per day until such time the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay, so on the first three, you've cited NFPA 1, 11.1.2.2. Yes, ma'am. That is talking about maintaining wiring, et cetera, in accordance with the addition of the NFPA 70 in effect at the time of installation. So, do you know when these things were installed and what the NFPA requirement was at the time it was installed? Normally, the conduit that goes to cover the wiring that's in there is up to the box. It's not, it's like hanging down the conduit is. So, the wires inside, the wire coming down through the conduit is exposed at the sign and at the breaker for the AC for suite one. See how the conduit, it's been like unscrewed from the bottom? Mm-hmm. So, the wire is exposed now. So, that just needs to be corrected, repaired. Okay. But that didn't answer my question, which is what was the NFPA requirement at the time this was installed? I can't answer that. Um, okay. Would you like to continue the case for you to determine that? I mean, I would imagine that that's most likely not allowed, but I, you know, I have to determine that it's not maintained in accordance with the addition of NFPA 70 in effect of the time of installation. I mean, that's what you've cited. So, um, so that would be continuing A, B, and C. All right. And then, so D, violation D, multi-plug adapters shall not be used as a substitute for permanent wiring or receptacles. Um, can you explain that to me? Yes. They have, like, extensions on the bottom part. So, it's like an adapter where they can plug electrical outlets into it, and the light bulb has been screwed on top of the adapter that's there. And that's being used as permanent wiring. So, they can plug in, um, Christmas lights, security cameras, all that from the outside, instead of going through a proper electrical outlet. Okay. And so, it would... Normally, the light bulbs are screwed right into the appliance. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Understood on that one. Then, the violation E, um, can you go to the vegetation that needs to be trimmed? So, it's all the tree limbs that are hanging on or above the building and that are encroaching the building. Okay. Which prevents a fire hazard. Okay. And, okay. So, D and E, understood on those. Um, alright. So, then, anything else before I make my ruling? Okay. So, I'm going to continue, um, violations A, B, and C. Um, and I find respondent, in this case, in violation of the city code as charged with respect to violations D and E. Um, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on March 28th, 2025, which is 30 days. And, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date for a total of $100. The 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 I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. And then this is fire 006 to, uh, sorry, 006, 2025, 2310, North Normandy Boulevard. Good evening. Thank you. For the record, my name is Sharon Shivers. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as the fire marshal. This will be case number fire 006, 2025. The City of Deltona v. Normandy Holdings, LLC. The property address is 2310 North Normandy Boulevard, Deltona 32725. Parcel ID 813-06-000030. This is a violation of the 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 state fire marshal, which contains the Florida specific version of NFPA 1 Fire Code, section chapter 13.1.1, requiring that the AHJ shall authorize to require that construction documents for all fire protection systems be submitted or reviewed and approved, and a permit be issued prior to the installation, rehabilitation, or modification. Further, the AHJ shall have the authority to require that full acceptance test of the system be performed in the AHJ's presence prior to final system certification. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the installation of the fire alarm cellular communicator and pass all final inspections. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations were sent by 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 the 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 July 12, 2022, DynaFire submitted application for fire permit fire 22-0032 to install an AES IntelliNet wireless communicator for monitoring of the existing fire alarm control panel. Lee Grosvenor, our fire safety manager, reviewed and approved the permit on August 23, 2022. The permit was issued and picked up by DynaFire on March 2, 2023. Fire safety manager Lee Grosvenor conducted a fire alarm communicator inspection and a fire alarm final on April 20, 2023, at which time it failed inspection. On September 2, 2023, the permit issued for this installation, again permit fire 22-0032, expired due to inactivity. Numerous attempts by Lee Grosvenor were made to the contractor without success. On December 9, 2024, a courtesy email was sent to the regional vice president for Normandy Holdings LLC, informing them of the expired permit, and followed up with a consultation report the same day. Subsequent inspections on February 9, 2025, and February 26, 2025, found the fire alarm communicator still installed. As of today's date, the cellular communicator is still installed, with no valid permit on file for said installation. The city would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance with the violation or a fine of $50 per day until such time the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Thank you. Did you say 90? 90. 90. Okay. You said that there was a permit issued, but they failed inspection, and now the permit has expired? Correct. Okay. They failed to comply with the re-inspection requirements. Okay. All right. And really, the violation, you have NFPA 1, Chapter 13.1.1. It really is the last sentence, right, that the AHJ shall have the authority to require full acceptance tests of the systems, and they haven't been accepted. Correct. Okay. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. I 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 May 27th, 2025, which is 90 days. In the event respondent does not comply by 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 admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Anything else before we adjourn? Nope. Um, Renee, would you be able to get the seven-day order as soon as possible? Thank you. Appreciate that. encouragement. We'll go ahead and adjourn.