straight hearing of April 23rd, 2025 to order. The first thing on the agenda is roll call, so I will have all of the code compliance officers introduce themselves. Mark Ipsen, code compliance supervisor. Danny Ron, code compliance manager. Joy Belli, fire inspector. Lisa Nadeau, fire inspector. Jessica Cotterman, hearing clerk. Renee Kearney, building and code compliance administrative supervisor. Todd Meade, code compliance supervisor. Yes, Scott, code reporting on. All right. 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. Next on the agenda is my statement about how the hearing is going to proceed this evening. I am going to 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 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, excuse me, filing a written notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of my order pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 162.11. The procedure of the hearing today will be governed by Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Hearsay is admissible, but only to support other competent and substantial evidence. If you are a respondent, you will be able to testify, tell me what you think I need to know about your case, present evidence and witnesses. Your testimony will be under oath, so I will be swearing you in and this hearing is being recorded. For each case, I will call the case number and the city will proceed first. The city has the burden of proving that the code violation exists. Then you will be allowed to respond. For each case, I intend to admit the case file and the PowerPoint presentation that will be shown this evening. You should have received a copy of your case file when you came in this evening. If you did not, please let me know when it's time for your case to be called. And I will admit that unless a specific objection is received. I will take the cases in the order that you signed in, first come, first serve. And I do have some cases to announce that have been withdrawn or continued, so I will read these out. DEL 25-013 Massey, 2679 Howland Boulevard is withdrawn. DEL 25-037A, 960 Shorecrest Avenue is withdrawn. DEL 25-041, 1329 Herndon Avenue, and DEL 25-047C through F for 1555 Saxon Boulevard is withdrawn. However, A and B, violations A and B are still going to be on the agenda. And FIRE 005-2025 for 2820 Howland Boulevard is also withdrawn. DEL 25-042 A and B for 1114 Cambridge Street is continued. So if you're here for any of the cases I just listed, you do not need to stay. They will not be heard this evening, except for the violations A and B for DEL 25-047. I will go ahead and swear in everyone who intends to testify today as a group, which includes the co-compliance officers. So if you intend to speak to me tonight, could you please stand and raise your right hand if you're able? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do. I do. Thank you. All right, I have no ex-parte communications to disclose, and so we will go ahead and proceed with the first case. This is DEL 25-043 A, B, and C, 1478 Cortland Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. My name is Christopher Sorrentino, and I am employed by the City of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25043 A, B, and C, building code 250224, building 250226, building 250329. The City of Deltona v. Lillian J. Wright. The property address is 1478 Cortland Boulevard. The parcel ID number is 813-047-060050. The property is being brought before the special magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. Your Honor, would you prefer me to go through each violation first or one at a time? You can go through one at a time, please. Okay. Violation A. 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, 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 you must obtain permits for the two sheds in the rear of home. I have violation B and C as well. Go ahead. They all kind of tie together, so. Okay, sure. Go ahead. Violation B. City of Ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition for the International Property Maintenance Code section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, or walls, shall be maintained and structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is repair or remove the structure. And violation C. is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the following building code section 105.1. which states that any owner, authorized agent, or who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, demolish, or change the occupancy of the 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 acquired permit. The corrective action for said violation is obtain the permit for defense. The statutory requirements for notifications of this hearing has been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation when 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 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 February 26, 2025, I arrived at 1478 Cortland Boulevard with my department manager to proactively address a multitude of violations. During my observation, I realized this property did not have shed permits pulled for two sheds erected in the backyard of a home. Another violation observed was defense and disrepair. During my visit, no owners were available to talk to. A notice of violation was posted for failure to apply for a city permit with the compliance dates listed as March 13, 2025. During my follow-up visit, I spoke with Ms. Wright's son. He stated they received the notice of violations and that he was actively working on resolving the matter. I was then advised by my supervisor to post a notice of violation for no permit on the fence erected on the property. The notice of violation was created and posted on April 2, 2025 and dated for compliance on April 16, 2025. I received a voicemail from Mrs. Wright after posting the notice of hearing due to failure to comply with the notice of violations posted on her property. I attempted to contact Ms. Wright but was unable to. I left the voicemail explaining the violations and corrective actions required to gain compliance. I was then contacted by Ms. Wright's daughter-in-law, Tanya Thayer, who left a voicemail asking what all needed to be done to gain compliance. I followed up with a call to which I received no answer, so a voicemail was left explaining the violations and corrective actions. No permits for sheds and or fence have been applied for at this time. Violations persist. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $125 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. And the breakdown would be $50 for the shed permit, $50 per day for the fence permit, and $25 per day for the fence and disrepair. Okay. So, related to the fence, I see there's panels missing. Is this picture from today? No, that's from the 7th. So, this one was of today? Okay. So, there's panels missing, and then you also determined—I'm asking. Did you also determine that the white part of the fence was installed without a permit? Correct. And the left side as well, the stand side. So, this front fascia of the portion, there's been no permit pulled for this portion, as well as the opposite side of the house. Okay. Thank you. In terms of the timing of 30 days, are these sheds going to require engineer drawings to submit? So, I guess my—I'm just concerned that 30 days may not be sufficient time in order to get engineer drawings completed. Okay. So, we'd like to look at 45 days to 60 days on the compliance. Well, do you believe that engineer drawings will be required for those sheds? I do not believe engineering will be required unless—because they do have a survey that they pulled recently for this structure that was erected on their property. These are standard sheds that they have on their property, but I do believe that they are—they will probably need to be relocated on the property because they may be too close to the rear-facing fence. Okay. So, they're not meeting setbacks either is most likely what's going on. All right. Yeah, I don't—I'll let the property owner speak, but I don't believe that 30 days will be sufficient for that. So, but let me—sir, can you say your name and address for the record? My name is Emanuel Hillary. I'm Lillian's right uncle. I'm the spokesperson for her. Okay. Lillian Wright moved in that property in 1993. The shed was erected in 1994. The proper permission of whatever they had to have back then was done through the county. There was no city of Deltona. So, I don't know if a Deltona came in to fit into here. I mean, I know it's the city of Deltona now, but those sheds was grandfathered. They took it as a city with the sheds there. So, I don't see why it should be an issue now, and they've been there over 30 years. Okay. And as far as defense is concerned, defense belonged to both sides of the neighbor, not her. They erected the fence, not her. But the fence is on her property. We're talking about the fence that is in the front of—on each side of her home, correct? Yes, Your Honor. So? It would be the front face of the home. Right. This portion right here. Not this portion. That's their neighbor's. This would be the portion we're discussing today. Okay. Okay. That won't be no problem. I'll take it out. Okay. All right. Okay. In terms of the timing on the sheds, I mean, a building permit is still required. So, you know, the city presumably—well, I don't know if the city can speak to how you came to see that the sheds were there. I'm wondering if that's because the panels on the fence are missing, and so you were able to see the sheds in the backyard. And the sheds are capable of being sold, even with the privacy fence. Mm-hmm. And as Volusia County property appraiser shows that in 2010, the sheds were not present on this property. Those sheds were there in 2010. They were there in 94. It's five days. I'm just showing you what the actual Volusia County property appraiser shows us. There is no shed in 2010. Easy. Not one, not two. And then here we have our first one in 2012, a record on the property. And then we have the second one covered by the brush. So, I got the third photo for the— 2015. Where it shows that that photo—now that all the debris was removed, you can see the second highlighted shed that was erected in 2015. So, in 2011 and 15, I believe. So, 2012 and 2015 is whenever these both were the dates of erecting these sheds. Well, the shed wasn't erected. The shed was brought in by a company. They brought them in, and they went down and got whatever they had to get from Volusia County, and they set the sheds up. We didn't tell them about—they wasn't built, that it was brought in as a unit. Okay. So, it was brought in by a company, and they were responsible for all permitting and all to get it. They put them there. Why you don't see them in 2009 or when are we saying that? They were there. I mean, the sheds, once—when they're erected, even if they're brought in, they require a building permit to obtain the— I understand what you're saying, your manager, but when the company bought it in, they was responsible for getting the permit and setting them up. They got the permit, and they set them up. We didn't set them up. They set them up. Whatever permit they needed from the county, they went through that procedure. They did, not us. Well, the property owner is responsible for obtaining the permit, and so, in this case, the city is saying that there's no permit on file, correct, for the sheds? Yes, Your Honor. So, is there anything else you'd like to say before I make the ruling? I was understanding on that, but I'm a contractor myself. If you call me to erect a building for you, I get the permit. I erect a building. I get to permit all the necessary permits to do the job, and it's not on the homeowner. It's on me, and it's the same thing with the sheds. It's on them to get the permit at that time. I don't know whether they got it or not, but it said that everything was straight, so they bought the sheds instead of money. Well, I understand that typically that's what a responsible contractor would do, is that they would obtain a permit on behalf of the owner because they're conducting the work, but ultimately it's the property owner's responsibility to ensure that a building permits obtained, if the contractor doesn't do so. So, and that appears to be what happened in this case. Well, the law that I follow, when I do contracting, it's my responsibility for the permit, not the homeowners. If I'm contracting a job, it's not their responsibility to get a permit. It's my responsibility to take care of all that. I take care of all the paperwork, all the permits. I build a house or whatever they need done, and I obtain the permits, and then when I finish, that turns it over to them, that's the way, right where I'm at, so I don't know. City, would you like to respond at all to that? You are probably one of the exceptions that do it the right way. It'll eventually afford the responsibility of the property owner where the construction was done. So these sheds were on your family's property, so we are addressing it with the property owner. Okay. Like I said, I don't know whether we did by that, but they were responsible. Maybe you can get with the contractor to put the sheds in there, that way they can pull the permit for you, which they should have done. That's been 30 years. So I don't even know whether anything can be. Yeah. From what I see in the photos, it was anywhere between 2010 and 2012 that these sheds were installed on the property. She got there in 93, and she visited there about a year after she got there. Okay. I do think, though, that the sheds may require engineer drawings, so I'm going to provide some additional time. I think 30 days is too short, so I will provide that. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? We don't need that 30 days. Well, I—okay. I've drawn to, but I mean, I wouldn't put my name on a building that old and saying, you know, I'm taking responsibility, but that's what you ask the name of the dealer to do when you do that. It's possible to obtain after-the-fact permits, and the Florida law does permit contractors to do that, so you'll have to, you know, determine what you need to do with a contractor to obtain that permit or speak with the building department, but a permit is required, and like I said, it's ultimately the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that they're pulled. So I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. I find a respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, and that respondent to correct the violations before, so I'm going to break these up. Violation A, which is related to the two sheds, I'm going to say 4 o'clock p.m. on—I'm going to say July 22nd, 2025, that's 90 days, and that should be more than sufficient time. These sheds have been there at least since 2012, and I think 90 days should be adequate time to obtain the permit. I'm a weirdo, so— With regard to violation B, which is the fence in disrepair, that would be 4 o'clock p.m. on Friday, May 23rd, which is 30 days. Just fix that. And for the permit for the fence, also, that will be 30 days, so May 23rd. If you're going to remove the fence, you presumably won't need the permit, so you'll—that should cure that one as well. All right, so May 23rd for that one as well. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation—for violation A continues past the aforestated date. For violation B, it would be $25, and violation C was $50. The respondent is for the order to contact the code compliance officer to verify compliance with this order, and I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Okay, the next case is Fire 014-2025, 1380 Howland Boulevard. Go ahead. For the record, my name is Jory Bailey. I am employed by the City of Deltona as the fire safety inspector. This case will be number Fire-014-2025, the City of Deltona v. Circle K, Stores, Inc. The property address is 1380 Howland Boulevard, Deltona 32738. Partial ID is 813038000060. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, which contains the Florida Pacific version of NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 1.7.12.10. No construction work shall proceed until the ASJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards, and applicable permits have been issued. Corrected action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the installation of the two ovens and associated electrical, and for the construction of the wall and the stock room. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing, and notice of code violations were sent certified by the certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case include 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 November 1st, 2021, Fire Safety Inspector, Jerry Bailey, conducted a fire inspection at this address, amongst other violations which have since been corrected. I observed the wall constructed without permits. I also observed new electrical work for the installation of the new cooking appliance, which has been installed on the permit ELEC-22-0011, which was issued on March 7th, April 7th, 2022. However, this permit expires on February 14th, 2023, with no inspections. And then BLDC-2022-0052 was applied for on March 3rd, on March 10th, 2022, for the repair of the wall on the floor, which has been canceled. Susequant inspections on February 21st, 2022, May 25th, 2022, June 19th, 2022. Uh, which is, uh, March 14th, 2023, uh, July 26th, 2024, and, uh, March 18th, 2025, and April 3rd, 2025, found the work still installed with no, with no valid permits issued. As of today date, no permits have been issued for the installation of the ovens or wall. The city would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance, or a final of 50 per day per violation until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. There's only one violation, correct? Yes, ma'am. It's the work without permits. Yes. Okay. So $50. Okay. I think, I thought you said $50 per violation, so I wanted to confirm. Um, I wanted to ask, uh, I feel like I've seen multiple violations of similar nature for Circle K, um, and so this is not one that I have seen before, correct? Yes, correct. Um. It was done around the same time at the other locations. However, this one has, um, kind of fell through the cracks. So that's why we're here now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, sir, can you state your name and address for the record? I'm Lee Murrah. I live on 3308 Planter Drive, um, off of Howland. What would you like to tell me about the case? I work for an architectural firm. I was hired Monday to, to make corrective action for this. Um, I've inspected the property and I stipulate to the violations. Okay. Thank you. Um, and do you believe 90 days will be sufficient to, um, correct the violations and apply for the permits? Uh, yes, Your Honor. We're going to withdraw the old permit, um, have new engineers and architects look at the situation, make up new drawings, go through permitting, and make corrective actions. Okay. Um, I've already inspected the, the, the site for safety, um, because they were installed without permits and, uh, it's a safe situation right now and we'll get it permitted ASAP. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. 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 July 22nd, 2025, which is 90 days. Uh, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforementioned state of date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-017, a Massey case, 2641 Windsor Heights Street. Good evening. Hi. My name is Janice Palacic and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case DEL 25-017. The city of Deltona versus Victor Manuel Flores Torres and Osana B. Espinosa and Laura Marquez and Laura C. Antun. The property address is 2641 Windsor Heights. The parcel ID number is 813-0325-660-180. 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 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 that they were taken. It was ruled on February 26, 2025, that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 a day since March 28, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,350 over 27 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. Okay, so this was related to a permit? For the accessory structure. For the, yes. They did submit it. It is under review. They submitted it on the 1st of April. It went through the zoning. It's now waiting on the building department, but it has not yet been issued. So compliance was required on March 28th and they did not submit until April 1st? Correct. Okay. Is the property owner here? They were. They left. They were unsure of how this was. They thought it was the initial hearing. They didn't realize that it was a Massey and they had left. Okay. I'm going to find a 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 to 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. And I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is Fire 015-2025, 1698, Diane Terrace. Good evening. Good evening. 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-015-2025, the City of Deltona v. Harmony Clinic. The property address is 1698, Diane Terrace, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID is 813-003-360-200. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance, chapter 42, article 4, fire codes, chapter 42-186, which applies 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 1.7.12.10, which requires a permit to be issued by the authority having jurisdiction prior to any construction work occurring in a building. Violations A, B, and C were corrected before this hearing today. You said A, B, and C were corrected? A, B, and C, yes. Okay, so we're only discussing violation D. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the anterior alterations and associate electrical, mechanical, and plumbing, or restore the space back to its original condition. 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 on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On June 27, 2024, I conducted a fire safety inspection at this address where I observed the above-mentioned violations. The property owner was notified in writing of the violations and given a time frame to correct said violations. Subsequent re-inspections on July 12, 2024, November 25, 2024, February 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, found no progress on the noted violations. Upon today's site visit, no progress was made on violation D. The City would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Okay, thank you. And you said that there's been no permit that's been submitted at this time? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Sir, would you like to state your name and address for the record? My name is Lester Carrero, and the address is 1698 Diane Terrace in Deltona, Florida, 32725, the zip code there. Thank you. What would you like to tell me about the case? I hired his services as an engineer to take care of. Okay. Okay. Would you state your name and address, too, please, if you're going to speak? Yeah. Ruben Muñoz, Mary Island. Yes, I'm a representative of a firm, no engineering and contracting company, and he is retaining us for us to bring the whole project to compliance. So, I just request all records for the building to see what basically has been altered, even though he bought the property as is. So, there was modification that was performed, and there is no recording in the city. So, we want to comply with everything, besides why he's been altered or not, that everything has been appropriated. So, we need a little time for doing prints and pull the permits and obtain the permits, because the review for commercial is like two, three weeks or so. Okay. And so, you said you were requesting records that the city has on file? I already have it, yes. Oh, you already have it? Yes. Okay. I already have it, yes. Okay. But, it took a little time first. Okay. And so, And it haven't started yet. All right. And so, you believe 90 days to be sufficient to go through the permitting process? Well, I don't want to be a little, you know, I may be asking for more, but I'm just going to request the possibility, if I see that we are short of the 90 days prior, like a couple of days prior, we can come back and make a little extension based on the progress that we have, because we depend now on the city review for the prints, that would take a little time. For me, it's going to take a little time to do the prints and then for the review. If we obtain everything between that, we do the corrections, and then 90 days is going to be okay. But I don't know if we got the opportunity to come back and prior 90 days or 90 days and then show what is the progress and then request a little extra in case we need it. No more, like, procrastination, just because something is delayed, like the permits or something like that. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, typically, we don't have another hearing to request additional time. So, I think if you don't believe 90 days to be a reasonable amount of time, that I would need to know that now. Can I get more time? At your discretion? We, I mean, it depends on how much time. But maybe another 30 days, is this okay? Another 30? Okay. Does the city object to that? No. Okay. Then that's fine. 120 then? 120. Can someone do the 120-day calculation for me? Tell me what day that is. August 27th? Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else before I make my ruling? No? No, I think that's more than time. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. All right. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code is charged for violation B only. And that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on August 27th, 2025. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in the PowerPoint as exhibits into evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is DEL 25-037-A and B, 960 Shorecrest Avenue. Good evening. My name is Bashir Tureksi. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25037B, city of Deltona versus Diane Holm. The property address is 960 Shorecrest Avenue, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID number is 813-011-440-180. This is a violation of city of Deltona ordinance section 185, IPMC 304.6, exterior walls, city of Deltona ordinance section 185, adopting the latest edition of the international property maintenance code, section 304.6, which states that all the exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials, and maintained weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to prevent deterioration. Corrective action for said violation is to repair the exterior walls, fascia, gutters, and soffits, and paint with the proper treatment. 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 the day they were taken. This is a proactive case that was opened by another officer on December 31st, 2024, after noticing that the roof, fascia, soffits, and gutters of this property were in disrepair. The officer noticed that the property was vacant and posted a Notice of Violation the same day and had it sent certified mail to the property owners. As of today, the property remains 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. I'm sorry, did you say 30 days? 30 days. 30 days and $25? $25 per day. I would like to ask, I want to be very clear about what it is that you would require to come into compliance. So, obviously, the soffit, correct? Correct. Is there anything else? No, the soffits, the fascia of the roof, which would be the side of the roof there, and the gutters, as you can see in some of the pictures, this side of the house, you can see the gutters barely hanging with, I believe, zip ties or wire, piece of wire. Some other portions of the house, it's completely missing. So, that would, the repair, to come to compliance would involve fixing all these three items, basically, the soffits, the fascia, and the gutters. Okay. The, okay, the gutters, I was going to ask about that, but I think the section does say the exterior walls have to be free from loose materials, and that is hanging on with the zip ties. So, okay. Thank you. Okay, ma'am, would you like to state your name and address for the record? Yes, it's Diane, home, 62 Azalea Drive in Deberry, Florida. Okay, what would you like to tell me about the case? I inherited this home. My dad died May of, it'll be two years, 22. And before that, he had a claim from 425-21 that we've been, he's in and out of the hospital before he died, and at a date, at a home. So then he, he died, and then I got an adjuster, and now I've been involved. And I have a letter from my attorney regarding, I can't fix anything, because we're now getting scheduled with an umpire, with State Farm. You're, I'm sorry, you said you can't fix anything, why? Because there's, because there's an adjuster, and I'm, umpire, and then the State Farm, I don't know, I have this letter from the attorney, it explains it a little bit more. All right, um, Mr. Rahner, could you bring it up to me, please? I'm really anxious to remodel the whole home. Um, I have never received an argument like this before. It's been a really long argument, and I'm so, I'm, I'm exhausted with it. But we, but I was just told before I came that a possible date was set with State Farm, the adjuster, and an umpire, which is out of court, it's an umpire, that was set for May 20th. So May 20th, I'll know more of what's going to happen. I've been waiting, I did depositions last October, and, um, it's, I mean, I wanted my, I wanted to fix this up and have my daughters live there, but this has been going on and on, meanwhile, of course, property, property went up, the, the mortgage, because the property is now a lot of homestead, so it's, like, costing me a lot of money just to sit there empty, and I'm dying to fix it. Well, I understand that. I mean, the attorney's letter basically says that because this is in litigation, the property damage has to be preserved as it's considered evidence in the ongoing legal dispute. Um, you know, I've never received an argument like that. Um, the city has an interest in making sure that properties are maintained, um, and, you know, litigation can last quite a long time. Obviously, there's other ways for you to, to maintain evidence, such as photographs and things like that for a case. So, you know, I'm willing to grant some additional time, but I, you know, I'm, I don't think that this should be continued indefinitely, um, for the ongoing litigation, and I've just strongly questioned why the property damage would need to be, remain in place when there's other methods of presenting that evidence in your litigation. Um, so I, uh, so anyway, I'm, I think that, uh, you know, is the city amenable to, um, to, let's see, this has been, I'm sorry, when did you say that the case was opened? Well, December 31st. December? 2024. Is the city amenable to, um, to 90 days? The city would be okay with that. Okay, I think, oh, excuse me, um, I'm actually waiting for a check, like, for them to come to a settlement so that I could do the repairs, do the roof. Yeah, understood. So I don't think, within 90 days, I'm going to, after May 20th, when the appointment is May 20th for this appointment, this umpire meeting, I guess they are going to set a date, then meet at the house, and all of them are going to do a, understood, I mean, but, you know, there's, again, the city has an interest in making sure that the properties are maintained in, in the city's jurisdiction, and, um, simply because there's an insurance dispute going on doesn't negate that requirement to maintain it. So, you know, again, I'm willing to provide some leniency and give some additional time, but that's, you know, that's really the limit, I think, and a reasonable limit. Um, so, I'm going to, unless there's anything else, I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. Do you have anything else to add? Um, May, June, July. I was going to ask until August, three months after the meeting. May 20th, May, June, July, August. Uh, well, so 90 days would be July 22nd. Um, let me see, let me just check calendar. I mean, I'd be willing to give August 1st, and that's, and that's the, the limit. Um, all right, I'm going to go ahead and find that respondent in this, in, in this case in violation of the city code as charged, which is violation B only, um, and that respondent corrects the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on August 1st, uh, 2025. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits in this case, and I find the notice is properly given. I'll also, may I keep the, this letter? I'm going to admit that as well as an exhibit, which is a letter from, um, Michael, uh, I'm going to not pronounce this correctly, uh, Gio Chetty, um, PLLC dated April 23rd, 2025. So that will also be an exhibit. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-018 A and B, a Massey case, 3000 Macon Street. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Janice Palacic, and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 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. 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 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 that they were taken. It was ruled on February 26, 2025, that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 per violation for a total of $50 for both violations a day since March 28, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $675 per violation for a total of $1,350 total over 27 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per violation per day for a total of $50 for each, for both violations per day to continue. Okay. I'm sorry. Can you, you said it was $1,000, what was the total? $1,350 for the total. Thank you. For the two violations. All right. And it was, and it was, but it was $25 per day for each violation? Yes. Okay. Um, related to the accessory structure, this is today's picture. Correct. Okay. And we, and it was, I believe I had written that there was a issue with a roof. Yes. That a tree had fallen on it? There was a tree on it. It had fallen from the neighbors, but I guess that since somebody had removed that tree. Okay. So they moved, removed the tree, but the damage on the roof is still there. Correct. Okay. Sure. And then the trampoline and the pool are still in the same location. The trampoline is, the pool had, I guess there was no water in it and it blew over the fence. So that was abated for safety reasons because we didn't want it blowing into the street. However, the trampoline still remains. Okay. Is the property owner here? No. Okay. Um, I will go ahead and make my ruling. I find that respondent in this case failed to correct the violations by the time specified in 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. I'm going to admit the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits into evidence and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next is DEL 25-019, Massey Case, 3332 Portland Boulevard. Hello, my name is Janice Palacic and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey Case number DEL 25-019. The city of Deltona versus Omega R. Smith and Andrea M. Walker. The property address is 3332 Portland Boulevard. The parcel ID number is 813-034-280-010. 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 owners 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 that they were taken. I told on February 26, 2025 that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 per day since March 28, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $675 over 27 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue running at $25 per day. Okay, and has a permit been applied for, I believe? A permit has been submitted. It was submitted on February 25, 2025. Again, it went through the zoning. It's waiting on the building department. I guess they keep submitting drawings with things that are illegible. So they keep sending back trying to get revisions from the property owner. So right now, it has not been formally issued. Okay. And you said it was originally submitted on 225, right? Correct. Yeah. I believe that's in my order, my initial order. Okay. Thank you. The property owner is not here, correct? No, ma'am. Okay. I just want to make sure. There's some people sitting in the audience, so I want to make sure. All right. 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 inspector. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance. I'm admitting the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is DEL 25-020, a Massey case, 2936 Carmela Street. Go ahead. Again, my name is Janice Palacic, and I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey 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. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by notice of hearing and notice of code violation 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 I have 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. It was ruled on February 26, 2025 that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since March 28, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $675 over 27 days. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. All right, so there's—excuse me, I'm about to sneeze. All right, so there's still holes in the roof and—okay, yes, still in the soffits. And was there—there was an issue with the gutters as well? No, there are no gutters on this home. Oh, okay, so it was just the roof and the soffits. Yes. Thank you. All right, 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 to 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. Yes, I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. All right, the next case is DEL 25-034572 Leland Drive. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25034, City of Deltona versus Brian R. Owens. Property address is 572 Leland Drive, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-0122-00010. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, which adopted in the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 304.7, which states the roof and flashing shall be sound tight and not have defects that emit rain. The directive action for said violation is to repair, 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 violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraises record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits. And submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. This case was originally opened by another officer on September 24th, 2024 for a roof and disappear. On that day, the officer observed a hole in the roof and issued a notice of violation. On October 22nd, 2024, the officer spoke with the property owner. The owner advised that he would have money to get his property repaired at the beginning of the year. This case was reinstated to me and I conducted a site visit on April 2nd, 2025 and observed holes in the roof and damaged soft fix. The notice of violation and notice of hearing was posted at the property on April 8th, 2025. As of today, the property remains in violation. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into complaints or a fine of $25 per day for this violation to be imposed until such time that the property owner notified the city of complaints. We can extend the past 30 days if we need more time. Okay. I'm just, I saw the pictures with the soffits basically being totally exposed. But you said there was also a hole in the roof? Yes. Go back to that last picture to the front door. It's really hard to tell what I'm looking at. Can you, is there any way to point at it? Oh, I see. Big hole there. Thank you. All right. I tried to zoom in a little bit. So there is a picture. It's a day. If you go to the day, right there, I used to see it. Okay. All right. There's a big gate going over there. And there's a hole by the front door as well under the soffit. You can. There's a hole in the roof there? Yes. A hole there. Okay. Okay. So, well, you said 30 days, but then you said that you would. Because he may need more time. So I'm okay with 60 if it needs to be. 60. Okay. All right. Let's do 60 then. All right. I find 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 June 23rd, 2025, which is actually 61 days. But otherwise, it would fall on weekends. So, June 23rd, 2025, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is DEL 25-040, 912 Halstead Street. Good evening. Good evening, Your Honor. My name is Tina Fagan. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-040. The city of Deltona v. Martinez-Jesus Manuel Hiera and Estrada Luz Patricia Hassel. The property address is 912 Halstead Street, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID is 813-0240-20240. This is violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adapting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 30413, which states that every window, skylight door, and frame shall be kept in sound condition, good repair, and weather tight. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace damaged missing windows and remove boards. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing has been met by the Notice of Hearing and Notice of Code violations, which sent certified mail to a property owner and the address listed with the property appraisals 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 they were taken. On January 11, 2025, I visited the property and noted a window bordered on the front face of the house. I left a courtesy door hanger, following re-inspect in seven days. On January 18, I returned to the property and observed that the windows continued to be boarded. I captured photographs of the site, which had been submitted as part of this case. On January 22, I conducted another inspection of the property and confirmed that the doors and windows remained boarded. I posted a Notice of Violation on the property. Photograph of the postings were taken. On February 6, 2025, the resident was granted a 30-day extension. On March 12, 2025, I conducted a re-inspect and observed the windows continued to be boarded. I took additional photographs, which had been submitted to this case. On April 9, 2025, I arrived at the location and noted the windows remained boarded. The violation persists. I have posted a Notice of Hearing on the door and attached relevant photographs for review. During my most recent visit today, the property remains in disrepair. The window remains in disrepair. Estrada Luz Patricia Hassel has been referred to the housing department to see if she qualified for assistance. 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. So, it was boarded up, but now there's like a piece of metal over the window? It's all plex. It's like a plexiglass. If you see it, it's like, it's not even fully covered at all. You see that gap in between the window? It's like leaning against the frame. Like a piece of plastic. Okay. And you said she was being referred to where for? She was referred to the housing department to see if she qualifies for assistance. Okay. Well, I'm just, if that's the case, then I'm just wondering if we should grant a little bit of extra time rather than 30 days. But since she's in that process of seeing if she can qualify, is the city amenable to that? Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, that'll be all. Okay. And you recommended $25? $25 a day. Yeah. Thank you. I'm going to find a respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on. I'm going to do, it's actually 47 days because of the weekend, so that would be June 9th, 2025. I'll give a little extra time than 30 days. All right. So, June 9th, 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. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-044-A and B, 2096 West Atmore Circle. Good evening. My name is Bashir Chirikzi, and I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-44-A and B, City of Deltona versus MK Construction and Associates LLC. The property address is 2096 West Atmore Circle, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID number is 813-069-060-010. The property is being brought before the special magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. It is the same violation for two different— Oh, you only have to read it once. Correct. 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, 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 both the newly installed windows, as well as the modifications done to the exterior walls. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing, a 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 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 a true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. These cases were proactive cases that were opened on December 29th, 24th, by another officer who noticed the newly installed windows at this property without a permit on file. A door hanger was left at the property the next day explaining the violation and the corrective actions. During my reinspection of the property, I also noticed that additional modifications have been made, have been done to the exterior walls. A notice of violation was then posted the same day on January 21st, 25th, given the property owner until January 31st, 25th, to come into compliance. As of today, no permit application has been submitted and the property is still in violation. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day per violation, totaling $100 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner notifies the City for compliance. I'm sorry, can you repeat? You said $20, did you say $50 per violation? That would be $50 per violation. Mm-hmm. Okay. So, again, you know, windows, if you're changing the, like, the opening, require engineered drawings. So, again, I do feel 30 days is short to accomplish that. So, the City would be okay, but given it more time. Okay. All right. That would be my only concern. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, that'd be all. Okay. I'm looking at, I'm going to look at the calendar just for a second. I'm going to fine, respondent in this case, in violation of the City Code as charged, and that respondent correct the violations before 4 o'clock p.m. on, I'm going to say July 11th, 2025, in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation, so $100 total, will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the Code Compliance Inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find a notice that's properly given in this case. Thank you. All right. This is DEL 25-045, 1132 Treadway Drive. Good evening. My name is Michelle Turksey. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a Code Compliance Officer. This will be case number DEL 25-045, City of Deltona v. Troxell John W. and Kerrigan Leanda N. The property address is 1132 Treadway Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32738. Parcel ID number is 813-040-330-160. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section 185, IPMC 302.7, housing code at Accessory Structure, violation City of Deltona ordinance section 185, 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 and sound structural condition. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or remove the structure, in this case the fence. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being said 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 December 23rd, 2024, after noticing a missing fence panel at this property. After further inspection, it was discovered that several other fence panels were in disrepair. A notice of violation was posted on January 12th, 2025, and the property owner was given until January 23rd, 2025, to come into compliance. As of today, the property remains 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, thank you. Yes, the pictures clearly show the fence in disrepair. Um, so I'm going to find a respondent in this case in violation of the City Code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on May 23rd, 2025, which is 30 days. And, um, in the event respondent does not comply by the, by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the Code Compliance Inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is DEL 25-047. Okay. This one we withdrew C through F, but we're still proceeding with A and B. 15, correct? Oh, yes. Um, that's the, not the same address. Yes. So, this parcel is a commercial parcel, and it has at least four to five different addresses, so it's the same parcel number. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, the first, the case, the address on the case file is 1519 St. Blvd. Go ahead. All right. My name is Jeff Scott. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a Code Compliance Officer. This will be case number DEL 25047, Violation A, Violation B, and Violation C. Violation, I'm sorry, Violation A and B, C, D, E, and F are in compliance. Um, the City of Deltona versus, wait, I'm sorry, pause. You said A, what did you say? I'm presenting A and B, Violation C, D, E, and F are in compliance. Okay. Yes. Gotcha. The City of Deltona versus BD Retail LLC. The property address is 1519 Saxon Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID is 813-018-020-011. If you look on the exhibit, on the second page in the exhibit T, you will see multiple property numbers listed with the same parcel number. This property is being brought before the special match rate for multiple, for more than one violation for expired permits. These violations are as follows. So, I'm going to read the violation, but it's for two different violations. Violation A and B will be, this is a violation of City of Deltona, Ordnance Section 18-3, adopted in the latest edition of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, which states that any owner must have been in compliance. 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, installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done. So, first, make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The corrective action for said violation is to obtain the permit for expired permit ELEC-22030. That's for violation A and violation B is to obtain the permit for expired permit BLDC-230014. The statutory requirement for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraises record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence 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, but true of what I observed the day that it was taken. These cases were started on December 10th of 2024. Four, information from supervisor regarding expired permits for the parcel. December 11th, 2024, email was sent to the property owner advising them of the expired permits. Notice of hearing, notice of code, notice of violation was posted at the property on April 9th, 2025. Today, I spoke with the property owner, Stephen Holliday, and he stated he will contact the contractors to get those expired permits resolved. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day for each violation to be imposed until such time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Okay, so for both of these was, let's see, the owner, medium, the Altona Retail LLC, they were the owner that pulled the permit, their original permit? Yes, the contractors, he hired contractors to pull permits for those. I can get into specifics, the electric one, the ELC-22-0030, that was to relocate some underground, existing underground wiring. That one has been inspected and partially passed, but they didn't finish with those inspections on that particular permit. And the ELDC-23-0014, it was a six-foot privacy wall, which is on the photos there. Those don't have any inspections on it. So the property owner is aware of that, so he contacted those contractors to get those resolved. This is the privacy wall? Oh, like, it goes around the whole property, basically? It's basically mostly on the right side of that property. Oh, all right, okay. And so they already had the plans, obviously, because they originally received the permit. Yes. Correct? Correct. All right. I'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged for violation A and B only. And that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on May 23rd, 2025, which is 30 days. Any event respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of $50 per day for each violation, so $100 total, will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and evidence, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is Fire 013-2025, 1240 East Normandy Boulevard. 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 013-2025, the City of Deltona v. Carolina Cleaning and Roberto Renovations, LLC. The property address is 1240 East Normandy Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. Barcel ID is 813-201-010-030. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapters 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 11.1.7.3.1, which states that each disconnecting means shall be legibly marked to indicate its purpose unless located and otherwise so the purpose is evident. And NFPA 1, Fire Code, Section 10.11.1.4, which states the assignment of addresses to buildings shall be in accordance with a method approved by the AHJ. Addresses shall not be changed unless approved by the AHJ. Violations C and A were corrected before this hearing. And corrected... I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. And corrective action for said violations are to relabel the electrical panels to the assigned address suite numbers 100 and 200 and remove the 1260 numbering from the address on the sign. 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 on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On November 11, 2024, I conducted a fire safety inspection at this address where I observed the above-mentioned violations. The property owner was notified in writing of the violations and given a time frame to correct said violations. Subsequent re-inspections on January 3, 2025, March 5, 2025, and March 26, 2025, found no progress on the noted violations. Upon today's site visit, no progress was made with violations B and D. The City would like to request 14 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations, or a fine of $50 per day per violation until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Okay. Can you, I'm sorry, can you go over Violation B with me again? And so, this is just not, essentially not labeled? Is that the problem? What it is, is on each of the two panels were installed. One is labeled as 1240, and the other one is labeled as 1260. The address for that location is 1240 East Normandy, suites 100, 200, not 1240 and 1260, as they have placed on the panels. Okay. So, it's really a matter of labeling it correctly? Yes. Okay. And then, the address is on the front, is, we're talking about what's on the front of the building, or? On the street sign, yes. Oh, on the street sign. It has 1240 and 1260, and it should be only 1240 East Normandy. 14 days is shorter than usual. Can you explain the reasoning there? Extremely, or, extremely easily fixable. Mm-hmm. Um, like, a few sharp markers, the wrong numbers all over, and they're fixing about five minutes. Mm-hmm. Um, okay. Like, better terms. Okay. I mean, that's understandable. But, I mean, I assume also it can lead to confusion if there were an emergency, and you don't know what address it is. The extreme. Right. Yeah. The extreme confusion. Both issues, the mislabeled electrical panels, and the non-existent address numbers they have on their sign. Okay. Thank you. All right. I will go ahead and find, respondent, in this case, a violation of city code is charged, and that respondent correct the violations before 4 o'clock p.m. on May 7th, which is 14 days, and in the event respondent does not comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $50 per day for each violation will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid state of date, so it will be $100 total. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits in this case, and I find the notices properly given. Thank you. Thank you. And Renee, could you please try to get that order to me earlier? Thank you. All right. The next case is Fire 24-0054, a Massey case 2101 Capri Circle. Your Honor. Evening. The record, my name is Sam Scheller. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a deputy fire marshal. This was a case that was presented to the special magistrate on September 25, 2024, and again is a Massey case on January 29, 2025. Case numbers fire 054-2024. Regional case was a violation, no permit for mobility chair installed in the associated electrical work. This was a violation of city code, chapter 42, article 4, fire codes, chapter 42-186, which stops the latest edition of Florida Fire Prevention Code. In specific, it was a violation of NFPA 1, chapter 1, point 7, point 12, point 10. It was ruled- Mr. Scheller, can I interrupt for a minute? Is the property owner here? No. This is a lien reduction? Okay. Well, I'm going to continue this case. I'm not going to hear a lien reduction. No, no, I'm going to hear you. The property owner is not here. I'll continue it to the next meeting. Yep. Thank you. If there, yeah, I mean, if there's a property owner that's requesting a lien reduction, then I expect them to be present. Is that the last one? All right. Anything else for the good of the order before we adjourn? Right here. We want to have a case ex parte. I have a case that was supposed to be heard today. I was notified over a month ago. I had to fly in from Montana. I'm a medical provider in Montana. I had to give up a week of work to do this. They notified me four hours ago that they filed a continuance. So I'm asking for this to be heard ex parte so I can continue on. This case has been going on for over a year, and I'm trying to get resolution to this. And this right here, there's just no time of submission in this, right? They notified me at the end of March, and they gave me five days to file before the special magistrate, like, a survey or to remove the wall. Hold on, hold on. I had followed the survey. I contacted Commissioner Santiago. I was in contact with City Manager Doc Daughtry and Officer Jimenez of Code Compliance. Officer Jimenez got back with me. Okay, let's pause for a minute. You're getting way into the details here. So I'm just going to ask. So the city requests that things be put on the agenda. Sure. And are you asking me to hear this case? Yes, ma'am. No, I'm asking the city. No, we would like to continue this case, and it's already been decided. We got approval to the city attorney to schedule it for the May 28th hearing. Okay, so, I mean, I've already continued the case. I already read them out at the beginning. And, you know, the city can request to continue a matter when they're not, you know, prepared to present it. It's their burden to prove the case violation, so. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, 1.460 states that if they're not prepared, that that is not a reason to continue the case. This is not governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a matter that is essentially, you know, again, the city has a burden of proving and preparing their case. So I'm not going to require them to present a case that they're not prepared to do. If I can speak. I'm an engineer, and the problem is that they, I don't know what the city's problem is, but this retaining wall has been properly engineered. It's on the edge of a lake, and the city did not permit me to make the permits because they say it's on city property. Now they're giving my client four days to remove it, and to remove it, he has to pull a demolition permit. And he cannot pull the permit because it's not on his property. So it's a catch-22. What my client wants to do is do the right thing. The city has to permit us to provide a permit, and they will not let us pull a permit. So I would say, so again, I'm not going to hear the case. These matters that you're discussing would be things to discuss with the city attorney. I'm not the city attorney. I'm a neutral magistrate that hears the case. And so if there's issues with regard to pulling permits and how you can come into compliance, those things need to be addressed with Mr. Ron and the city attorney's office. So I had spoke to the previous city attorney about this matter back in October. The case was going to be dropped, and that was per Officer Jimenez at that time. I had not heard anything from the city from October until March on this matter, and then the case had been reopened. And that was underneath the previous city attorney's direction for me to have littoral rights of that thing and riparian rights to build that structured wall. And then it reopened again. And then what I'm asking is that it's not timely. When I have to come from Montana, and I'm paying him an hourly rate to be here, plus my loss of wages, so do I need to ask the city for that reimbursement as well? That is not— That's a lot of money. Yeah, well, that—again, that's not something that would be within my purview. Yes, ma'am. However, I will tell you that in the past we have had people appear by Zoom. So if that's an issue for you, you can discuss that with Mr. Ron for the next hearing. But again, I'm not going to hear a case that the city has asked me to continue. So that's it. And again, I would say if you have issues about how you come to compliance and things like that, that's addressed through Mr. Ron and the city attorney's office. So then may I ask the magistrate for a continuance past May 28th so I can seek legal counsel? You know, would the city be amenable to that? I could say 60 to the following month, because you'll be June. I'm okay with that. That's fine. I'll go with June. All right. We'll continue it to the June meeting. Yes. Sounds good. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So that the minutes will need to, I'm sorry, the, we continued it at the beginning, right? This is for, this is DEL 25042 A and B. Okay. So we'll just note it would be continued to the June meeting, please. Thank you. All right. I believe that's it. Unless there's anything else, we'll go ahead and adjourn. Thank you.