Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of 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 place. Any decision I make this evening will be put into a written format in the form of an order. A copy of my written order will be provided to the city and then mailed to you as well. It is important to note that for any order I issue, you may appeal by sending a written notice of appeal, or 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 a 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 by the code enforcement officers. You should have received a copy of the file, your case file, when you came in this evening. If you did not receive it, please let me know when it is your turn for your case. But I do intend to admit the case file and the PowerPoint presentation into evidence unless a specific objection is received. I will take the cases in the order that you signed in, first come, first served. I do have a few cases that have been withdrawn or continued, so I will read those. The withdrawn cases are DEL 25-052, 507 Oslo Drive. Continued cases are DEL 25-011, Massey Case, 1384 Rock Hill Street. DEL 25-024, Massey Case, 1264 South Seagate Drive. And fire 017-2025 for 1381 Howland Boulevard. If you are here for any of those cases that I just read out, you do not need to stay. They will not be heard this evening. I will go ahead and swear in anyone who intends to testify today as a group, which includes the code compliance officers. So, if you are able, 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. Thank you. All right. There are no Part A communications to disclose, and we will go ahead and start with the cases. First case is Fire 24-0054. A Massey Case, 2101 Capri Circle. This is not on my agenda. One moment. As a Massey case. Page 10. This is going to be a lien reduction. Oh, okay. I see. At the very end. Thank you. All right. Please go ahead. Okay. Good evening. This is a case that was presented to the Special Magistrate on September 25, 2024, and again as a Massey on January 29, 2025. The case number is Fire-054-2024. The case was a violation of no permit for the mobility chair installed and the associated electrical work. As per the City Code, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186 adopted, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 8th edition, NFPA 1, Chapter 1.7.12.10. It was ruled that the property was given until 4 p.m. on December 27, 2024, 93 days to correct the violation of NFPA 1, Chapter 1, .7.12.10. Failure to comply would result in a fine imposed of $50 for each and every day the violation continued past the affirmation date. The property did not come into compliance until 38 days after the initial ruling. The property accrued a fine of $1,900. The City has considered the staff cost associated with this case totaling $1,179.42, and the City does not recommend any reduction in fines for this case, and the property owner be responsible for the full amount. You said $1,179.42. $1,179.42. Thank you. Sir, what would you like to tell me about the case? I just, I tried to go through somebody else to get the Deltona elevator to get the job taken care of, and it took a long time. Finally, they didn't even get the job done, so finally I had to do it and call the electrical contractor. When I come here the second time, then I found I need a permit, an electrical permit. That's what I needed to start with. And after I knew that, it was like a week and a half, and we were taken care of. We were into compliance, so I'm just here by half my company, so I was hoping I could get a reduction. Okay. And so, were you present at the first hearing? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And so? I was understanding that I needed a license through the Florida, whatever it's called, where you get a license for an elevator. So I went through a company to do that, and it took forever. It was like somebody else doing it. I couldn't do it myself. I tried to do it myself first, and then they said that I couldn't do it. I had to be at an elevator company because it had to be inspected and everything. So, when I came back into court, or whatever this is, I came back in, they told me, you told me, that I needed an electrical permit. Once I heard that, I went and did that, it's all over. Okay. And so, you said once after our second hearing. Yes, ma'am. How many days did it take you to come into compliance? A week and a half. All right. City, do you have any further comments? Yes, I can get the dates, but during the initial fire inspection, when the violation was discovered, it was notated that a permit would be required for the mobility chair and all associated electrical. And it also was stipulated in the initial ruling that was ruled September 25, 2024, that specified also the associated electrical. Right. For a low-income property, we have several. And so, we tried to help people out. We tried to help people with the chair. When we had it put in, they said we didn't need a permit. The guy that put it in. Don't need a permit. Don't need a permit. It's inside, you know. So, we had it put in, and we had it for four years before this ever came up. Four years it was up. I guess because of COVID, I would imagine. Somewhere in the 21 or something like that, it was installed. And nobody ever said anything about it. Then, all of a sudden, it was a problem. So, if I may, that was the first time we had gotten in to do an inspection of the apartment. Why is that? We discovered it. I couldn't answer that question, sir. Okay. Well, you're supposed to inspect every year. Nobody's ever said anything, like I said, for four years. And then, all of a sudden, it's a problem. So, we didn't realize it was a problem at all because we thought everything was fine. It's just a chairlift sitting in the side of the stairway. That's why we gave you time to comply. Yeah, I understand that. I didn't understand when I first came, the first time I come, I didn't understand. I just had to go get a permit for the electrical contractor, had to go get a permit. After that, it was done. I didn't understand that the first time. That's my fault. All right. Are there any previous code violations that you're aware of for this property? No, everything had been brought into compliance. That was the only remaining item that we were working with them on. Okay. And, sir, when you said that you provide low income housing, is that? Okay. HUD. It's a HUD place. Okay. Yeah, so we have all over the—we have some in Orlando, so we're all low income, everything. Okay. And so, do you basically accept vouchers? Is that— No, the building is HUD, so we just take the people on. They don't have a voucher. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, I am willing—here's what I will do. As you probably know, I make a recommendation to the city commission. Ultimately, it's their decision about what to do with the lien request, but what I will do is make a recommendation to reduce the lien to the city's costs in this case, so it isn't—you know, it's a slight reduction, but it is a reduction. Um, and I think the reasoning for that would be, um, the—I guess the confusion that you had, um, but moreover, the fact that you're providing, um, affordable housing and there are no other, you know, violations that at least have been presented, um, and, you know, I don't think it—you know, 38 days is, um, not as significant as many other, uh, violations that we've had, and so I'm willing to recommend—recommend going down to the costs. Is it $1,100? Yeah, so it was $1,179.42. So, I'll make that recommendation, and the city commission will ultimately decide. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-054, A, B, and C, for 916 Shorecrest Avenue. Go ahead. Go ahead. My name is Todd Mead. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance supervisor. I'm reading this case in for the officer who was, uh, present doing the inspections and the work in the case, uh, today for tonight's special magistrate. This is case number DEL 25-054, A, BLD 250163, DEL 25054, B, BLD 25-0164, DEL 25-054, C, LD 250165. The city of Deltona v. Shamar R. Taylor, the property address is 916 Shorecrest Ave, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-011-410-180. This property is being brought before a special magistrate for more than one violation. Uh, each, each violation refers to a no permit, so would you like me to read each? You can, all of them are for violation of section 105.1, correct? Right. So, just read that one time, one time. Read it once, and then I'll address each? Okay, good. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. So, for violation A, the corrective action is you must obtain the permit for the accessory structure, which is the shed. Corrective action for violation B is you must obtain the permit for the wooden accessory structure, the pergola, noted in the pictures. And violation C is the correct answer for, is the permit for the concrete flat work, concrete dry behind the fence slab, as noted in the pictures, the exhibits. The statutory requirements for the 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 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 portrayal of what observed on the day they were taken. These cases were initiated by a proactive case started by the supervisor on February 10th of 2025. The accessory structure were noticed at the property and through review of the area, there was no permit on the shed. On 2017-2025, the officer stopped by the property and questioned and spoke with a male resident and informed him that both the accessory structures and the concrete flat work require permits and advised him of the corrective actions. The notice of violations were posted that same day and the property owner was given until March 1st, 2025 to come into compliance. On March 6th, the homeowner came into the City Hall office to obtain information on the structures and the concrete work as it will explain to them that a survey and engineered drawings will be needed in order to comply for the permits. To date, no permits have been obtained or no applications submitted for any review of plans for a permit 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 per violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the City of Compliance. Okay. Can you go back to, so I'm just trying to determine what's what in the picture, so the... So the resident did it at one time, did apply for permits, did receive permits on these, so they do have a current survey. This blue area, these were permitted at a time with the City. Later on, this concrete area was poured, and this is now shed that is in the back of the property, and this, you can't, it's dark in there, but there's a wooden structure pergola type that is here, and now you can see that thing. I did show that, because I took the initial pictures to the case. I did ask the building instructor, the building official about the pergola, and he did say that did require a permit. Yes. So now this is the shed, the concrete padded area, and the permit. So those are basically the three structures of the permit. It can be one permit, but they would have to be individually probably looked at. Okay. Do you believe that... Excuse me. Do you believe that 60 days will be sufficient to obtain engineered drawings for this? I believe, if they initiated anything, that would probably know if they've initiated anything with any, to know where they're at if they were going with that procedure. Yeah. They got it. All right. Ma'am, can you state your name and address for the record? Shamra Taylor, 916 Shortcrest Avenue. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? We're trying to get... Well, so when we had this building built, we were told that it was all going to be permitted because it was all one job, the concrete and the building. Well, we have... I mean, I have text messages to the building people. We even paid $200 to them, and they're ghosting us, and I can't get them to come, like, to answer me and give me the drawings or come out. But we do have another company that's agreed to come out next week. I've had two no-shows on two other companies that we tried this week. So I just need time. The pergola, I truly didn't... We didn't realize that we needed an engineered drawing for that until I went to here last month. Okay. So she said that it's to a certain size, and I emailed her whenever I went home and measured it, and she's like, okay, yeah, you're going to need an engineered drawing. So I'm like, okay, great. Yeah. Okay. Do you believe that 60 days will be sufficient time to come into compliance? If I can... If these people show up, then maybe. I don't know. They did say that it takes sometimes a couple of weeks to get the drawings back. I mean, I just... I don't know. I can't really answer that. I don't... I don't... I'm not in that field, so I'm not sure how long that stuff takes. Okay. Do you have anything else to add before I make the ruling? Um, I'm just confused as, like, why you can drive around Delatona and see hundreds of buildings on fence lines, and they're not... They're just existing, and they don't get... They don't get violations. And then Bashir told my boyfriend that, oh, just take somebody calling on you. Like, it just seems a little unfair that there's just several buildings everywhere. I have picture upon picture upon picture of buildings on fence lines. Well, I mean, I can tell you that I see cases every month, so you're not the only one. And, you know, the code enforcement officers, even if they don't receive a complaint, they may see, you know, a newly erected structure. I don't know if the city, if you want to respond to that any further, but... I can respond to that. In this particular case, I was out in the area going up and down Shortcrest doing... Checking on other cases. I didn't notice the shed. The shed caught my eye. That led me to believe it's new. I haven't seen that there before. Noticed that there was no permit, so that initiated the case. So... Yeah. I then had the officer follow up with what else. I guess, yeah, we were just misinformed then, because we were told that somebody called on us, and that's why... That we were called upon, because there was a dumpster in front of our house. And that's why they violated us for that. I mean, I get it. It's got a permit. But I just... Yeah. I was just super curious. Yes. I see tons and tons and tons, and I just kind of lose my mind. Well, again, I can tell you that we're here every month, and many of the violations are related to building without a permit. So, the city does enforce that. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling, although I think that I'm going to provide 90 days, simply because you have several structures that are going to need engineering drawings, and I think that that is a more reasonable time. So, I'm going to go ahead and make my ruling. I find a respondent, in this case, in violation of the city code is charged, and that respondent correct the violations before 4 o'clock p.m. on August 26th, 2025, which is 90 days. And 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. Each violation continues past the aforestated date, so it would be $150 total per day. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. So, I strongly encourage you to, you know, try to find someone to come out there and start the work as soon as possible and keep in contact with Mr. Mead about your progress. So, am I contacting you now? Because I have Bashir. Bashir is your officer to communicate with you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next case is Fire 23-023, a Massey case, 55 Cortland Boulevard. This one will also be a link reduction. Go ahead. Go ahead. This is a case that was presented to the Special Magistrate on November 29th, 2023, and again is a Massey on February 28th, 2024. The case number is Fire-023-2023. The case was a violation of no permit for the fire alarm cellular communicator installed. As per the City Code, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186 Adopted, the Florida Fire Prevention Code 7th Edition, NFPA 1, Chapter 1.7.12.8. It was ruled that the property was given until 4 o'clock p.m. on January 13th, 2024, 45 days to correct the violation of NFPA 1, Chapter 1.7.12.8. Failure to comply would result in a fine imposed of $25 for each and every day the violation continued past the date. The property did not come into compliance until 472 days after the initial ruling. The property accrued a fine of $11,800. The City has considered the staff costs associated with this case totaling $1,155.04. The City does recommend a reduction in fees in this case, and the property owner be responsible for 10% in the amount of $1,180. Okay. On the agenda, it says the amount of the lien was $11,150. I think you just said $11,800, if I heard you correctly. Yes, that's what I was here. So which one is correct? That's a good question. Sam Schaller did the presented or created this, so I don't have that answer. Okay. That's incorrect information then. All right. I don't know if anybody here has that. Yeah. I mean, if it's 472 days, that would be $11,800. So it may just be a mistake in the agenda page. Okay. All right. And so you're saying that the City is agreeing with the reduction to $1,150? $1,180, 10%. Okay. Can you explain the reasoning for that? There was a little bit, in looking through the history, there was a little bit of confusion on the permitting side of it and permitting technicians getting some information out to the client as well. We had the permit issued in 2022 for the cellular communicator. It was issued, but no finals were ever completed. At some point, there was a 2023 permit that also got submitted and was reviewed by another plans examiner. So the two plans examiners, I don't think, were in communication with each other. So the plans examiner for the 2023 permit conducted the review, denied it because it was in complete application. There were some missing items. It sat dormant and also was expired. It voided because there was no activity. At some point, fast forward a couple of years later, the property owner contacted our permit techs who then referred to Lee Grosvenor, who was the initial plans examiner for the 2022 permit. And it's our policy that if a permit was issued but no inspections were completed, we will reopen the permit versus if it was voided because it was not issued, then we would have them resubmit. So in this situation, we reopened the permit and Lee Grosvenor went out and conducted the final inspection. But I guess my question is, it's 472 days of noncompliance, which is quite a long time. So it's that for that long before someone then contacted the city and you discovered this kind of issue? Yeah, we kept initiating re-inspection reports that would go to the management for the property. It would get tied up in corporate, which we do find quite often the case. I'm not condoning that situation. But we do find that it is, with these large corporations, it is a little challenging. This, the alarm worked, it was in, it was, it could have been an over-the-counter permit. There was a lot of, a lot of things that could have gone better on both ends. So as to not penalize the applicant, we are in complete agreeance with a fine reduction. Okay. Oh, and I'm sorry, I forgot to ask, did you say what staff costs were in this case? Yes. It was in the amount of $1,155.04. $1,155.04? Yes. Okay. All right, sir, what would you like to tell me about the case? And, sorry, can you please state your name and address for the record? Of course. My name is John Heron, H-E-R-I-N, and I'm here on behalf of Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., as the representative. And first, I'd like to say that everyone on staff has been very helpful in trying to resolve this issue once it was identified. I do want to emphasize that a permit was obtained. Unfortunately, for reasons unbeknownst to anyone here, including myself, the contractor who did the work did not call for the final inspection. And that's, frankly, the reason for the delay all of that time and the accrued fine. The work was obviously done to code. Once it was identified that the final inspection needed to be performed, we contacted city staff, got the permit reactivated, paid the reactivation fee, had the inspector come out and do the inspection, and it passed, and it's now obviously in compliance. And so, in communicating with city staff, they informed us that we had to submit a request and come here before the special magistrate and request a reduction in the fine. And that's what we're here for. We're willing to pay the city's cost of enforcement that was entered into the record, and we'll do so subject to the city commission's approval of that reduction. We'll pay it within a reasonable period of time, assuming the request is granted. And we just ask for the special magistrate to make that recommendation to the city commission so we can move forward with getting the matter resolved and the fine paid, the lien released, and close out the matter. Okay. Thank you. I will, as I said before in the previous matter, this is just a recommendation, and the city commission makes the final decision. Given that staff is in agreement with this amount, the $1,180, that's what I will recommend that the fine be reduced to, which is only, you know, basically $25 more than, you know, the staff's costs. And, you know, I guess, you know, because of staff's agreement with that, I will make that recommendation. And also, it seems the gravity of the violation was not that severe because the work was done and there was the cellular communicator was installed, correct? Yes. Yes. From the initial date of the initial permit, it was installed. Again, I can't explain as to why the contractor didn't call for the final inspection, but it's been in place properly and operable since that point in time. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll make that recommendation to reduce the fine to $1,180. Appreciate it very much. Okay. Again, I just, normally, I sit up there where you are at in a lot of different places. So, it's always interesting to see how other jurisdictions handle their code enforcement. And, as I said, staff has been extremely helpful in getting the matter resolved. So, thank you very much. Yep. Thank you. That's good to hear. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-053, 2230 Howland Boulevard. Good evening. My name is Steve Brockhoff. I'm employed with the City of Deltona as enforcement officer. This will be case number DEL 25-053, City of Deltona v. Lindsay Tripp. The property address is 2230 Howland Boulevard. Parcel ID number is 8130-7424-0430. This is a violation of the City of Deltona, Ordinance Section 66-18, Subsection E, Improper Parked Vehicles, which states that no vehicles may be parked or stored in the front yard forward at the edge of the principal dwelling, except on approved driveway or driveway extensions. Statular requirements for this notification of hearing have been met by the notice of hearing. A notice of violation were sent a certified mail to the property owner of the address listed as a property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall, and I hand-delivered the notices at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All evidence in 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 January 7th when I noticed a vehicle parked in the front yard at 2230 Howland Boulevard. I spoke to the owner, explained the violations. On January 14th, the property was still in violation, so I posted notice of violation and requested certified mail. The violation occurred sporadically, and on May 4th, the truck was parked in the front yard and I requested this hearing date. Currently, the property is in compliance and has been in compliance for at least a week or more, and they have even cleaned up the sidewalk in front of the property. So what the city requests is that the property be found in non-compliance past the date of notice and be closed, but that would leave them as a repeat violator if the violation occurs in the future. Okay. Can you go back to the picture? So the vehicle was the... The truck. The commercial truck. Yeah, there was actually, initially there was the van and the truck is periodically there, but it's any vehicle parked in there. That is a, looks a large truck, but the manager of the code enforcement, I have not been able to find any document that puts out over 10,000 pounds, so it is allowed to be in a residential area. Okay. It's just not in the front yard. Not in the front yard. Yeah. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Actually, can you state your name and address for the record first? Lindsay Tripp, 2230 Howland Boulevard. The van is gone. That was gone about a week or two after we got the initial thing. And the parking situation, we have nowhere else to park. On the one side of our driveway, I don't, you can't really tell in the picture, maybe you can, but that's a angled drop off. So there is no way to park a vehicle, even to extend our driveway over to the right side of our driveway that's existing. And we have two vehicles that he goes to work and I sometimes have to leave in between. And it just makes it very difficult to have both vehicles backed up one in front of the other in our small driveway. Um, it is no longer been parking in the yard. He's been parking in the driveway for two weeks, two and a half weeks now. Um, so that has been corrected. Um, and the dirt that's there, we live on a hill. Our driveway is an extreme incline. So without having grass there, every time it rains, the dirt that's in our yard washes into the sidewalk, which my husband just over the past weekend put sod there trying to get grass to grow. So the dirt doesn't wash away. But the dirt issue, I feel like is silly because we can't control the incline of our property and what washes away and what doesn't. Well, the dirt issue is not being, is not being alleged as a violation. So, well, the fact that he brought it up and that there's a picture specifically of just the dirt is why I was saying that. Understood. But, but I'm not making a ruling on that issue. So, um, so, but you're saying that, um, currently the truck is parked in the driveway. Yes. Okay. It's just a, it's kind of a pain. Like when she has to leave, I'm parked behind her. So I have to, and we live on Howland. I have to back out into the street, let her back out. And then I have to pull back in and then now she's parked behind me. And then the next day when I go to work, I got to move her car and then move my truck out. And we also have two toddlers too. So it's difficult to, every time we have to move, then we have to put them in the car or one of us stays in the house with them while he moves one vehicle onto the side to move the other one out and then place the other one back into the driveway again. So it's, it's a complicated situation. Um, and I understand that we can't put, we cannot extend our driveway in front of our front door to the left of our driveway is what I was told. Which would be ideal. Which is the only place because it's flat. Because the other side of our driveway is a drop off. There's, I just measured the other day, there's, I need like nine feet extra or like eight feet extra and there's nine feet there. But that's right at the end of the hill where it drops off. So I need a retaining wall and I have to go through all that. It'd be one thing if I could do that. But if I could just park on the left side, that wouldn't be as big of a deal because there's plenty of space there. And they keep saying I can park on the side of the house as long as my truck is behind the face of the house. There's not enough room in between the houses without me being on the neighbor's yard. On the, on the one, on the left side by the blue house. And on this side, it's, again, it drops off. There's no space there to do anything with. Well, I understand that it's inconvenient to, you know, have to kind of move all the cars around. However, I mean, the city code is what it is, which is you may not park in, in the front yard except on an approved driveway. So, you know, unfortunately, you know, that, that I somewhat sympathize, but that is, you know, it's a, it's an issue for the city in terms of aesthetics and everything else. If everyone's parking on their front, front lot. Well, there's also houses across the street from us that I have taken pictures of over the last two weeks that they have vehicles parked in their grass and not on an approved driveway. Right. There's a house, two or three houses down from us that has a vehicle that has not moved. The grass is all grown up underneath the vehicle and they just mow around it and it's parked on the side of their house, not behind. It's just parked next to their carport and it's been there for months and it has not moved. Well, I, I, you know, we can't, I can't speak to what those issues are, but the city, you know, may have active code enforcement cases against them. I don't know, but nevertheless, you know, it's clear that this is a violation. At least it was when the truck was parked there. So, um, at this point I will, I'm going to make my ruling, which is that it, it was a violation, but it has been corrected, which means there won't be any fine imposed at this point. However, if there are future, uh, violations, they can, you know, you can, um, have a fine imposed as a repeat violation. So, um, what if like we have company over and our, our cars are in the driveway and somebody parks in the grass because there's no other option and they just happen to drive by and see it. Does that count as a violation if they're only parked there for a couple hours? I mean, there's no, there's barely when we have people come and visit and stay with us and there's an extra vehicle there for a week. There's no other place for them to park, but in the yard. Well, I'll let the city respond to that. But the code says, again, says what it says, which is you're not permitted to park on the front lawn. Uh, parking where they're at is, is difficult, uh, because, uh, they're on the main thoroughfare through the city. Uh, and a lot of those properties probably have lost some, um, some area because when the, the, the, the hollowing was widened. Uh, however, um, David, the city can't, uh, adjust for, for that so much. Uh, and inconveniences, I understand that, but, uh, to, to put it succinctly is, um, in order for me to get my ranger out this morning, I had to move my wife's Yaris and then put my wife's Yaris back in. These are things we have to do in order to maintain the, the, the looks of the, uh, property and, and the, the city. So we're not asking them to do anything that we don't do ourselves. All right. Um, I'm going to find, let me, let me get my rolling here. I 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. That the violation is now corrected and no fine be imposed. Any violation of the same code by 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. Thank you. The next case is DEL 25-051, 1901 East Chapel Drive. Uh, your honor, this is, uh, the first time I've actually had contact with the, uh, homeowners. And I would, uh, like to request a continuance until August, um, uh, code, uh, special magistrate hearing if that's possible. Yes, I'll grant that. So that would be the August meeting is August 27th, I believe. Is that right? Yes. Since this is a roof, there's going to be, um, permits and, and, uh, contractors and that kind of stuff. So at least that time. Yes. Okay. Yes, we will. Yes. So we'll continue this matter until August 20, the August 27th hearing. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. So much. The next case is DEL 25-048, 668 Pepperwood Avenue. Good evening. My name is Tina Pagan. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This case will be, I mean, this case number will be DEL 25-048, the city of Deltona versus Emily Chestnut. The property address is 668 Pepperwood Avenue, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 803-605-0502-50. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 38-114, which states that furniture outside must be designed to be placed outdoor or stored inside a covered structure. In addition, storage of material relating to residential use, children's plate toys, firewood, brush, logs, or any other material intended to be used in fireplaces or any other permitted burning facilities shall be permitted only in the rear yard to the rear wall of the home. Corrective action for said violation is to washing, is the washing machine must be properly stored or removed from the 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 appraisal 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 a that exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify and any, I certify that and any oral photo, oh, sorry, excuse me, and oral photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On March 20, 2025, I visited the property and the washing machine hookup on the right side of the house. I spoke to the resident and informed her of the violation and the corrective action. On March 27, I arrived at that location and observed that the washing machine is, continues to be outside of the right side of the property. I proceeded with an NOV. On April 16, I arrived at that location and the washing machine remains in violation with hoses attached. On May 3, I arrived at that location. Violation remains. I posted a notice of hearing on the property. During my most recent visit today, the violation remains. 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 the property owner has notified the city of compliance. So, the washing machine is in the side yard? Yes. Well, it's on the side of the house. It's in the yard. She has a fence, so it's before the fence. If you see right there, there's a fence. Yes. That's the backyard. This is the front of the, on the side of the house. I'm sorry, can you repeat that again? Go back to the, it's, this is like visible from the street? Yes. Okay. So, if I stand on the sidewalk, I can actually see it. Okay. And when I visited, I'm sorry, when I visited today, she also had other property, I mean, other debris outside her lot, which I also made another case for. And so, it's being utilized, it's hooked up? Yes. You see the hoses? I can see, I can see the hoses, right? I could, right here's the hoses. It's connected. And on one of my visits, I actually saw a puddle of water by the, by the front of her house due to the washing machine being used. So, right now, she has like a garbage can on today's picture. It was actually blocking the washing machine. She's trying to block it, but we could still, I could still see it from the sidewalk. Yep, right there. And I'm sorry, what did you say about that pipe? Oh, no, I didn't say anything about the pipe. I said the hoses, the hose that she has there. Mm-hmm. Yes. Right here, this hose is connected. It's attached to the house. So, she's basically washing. She said she's allowed to do that. I told her she's not. And I explained to her the ordinance, and she still continues to leave the washing machine outside. She was actually supposed to come today, but she didn't show up. Okay. I'm struggling with this only because if it were, let's say, an AC unit that was being utilized, I assume you would not find that to be a violation. What makes the washing machine different? Due to, I suppose, a washing machine is supposed to be indoors, not outdoors. An AC unit can be outside due to, or AC units, for the most part, are outside. And like I said, also, there was a puddle of water on one of my visits coming down from her property. If I'm not mistaken, I think that's the photo right there. If you look down on the ground, it's moist, all through here. I guess my point is that the violation is for storage of materials, and this is being, yes, storage of materials outside. This is actually being, is hooked up and being utilized similar to other types of machines, like an AC unit that would be permitted on the side of the house. I'll tell you, I just feel like washing machines should be inside house. I also think drainage, which is where the hose is attached to the, that outlet hole, pipe, PVC. So, when the washer drains, all the water is flowing into the lawn, which is also unpermitted. Yeah, but that's not the violation that's been cited. So, I think, like I said, I'm uncomfortable with this. I think that I'm going to find no violation in this case, though there may be other violations that might exist. But, I'm not convinced that this is really storage of materials, because it is, while it may not be properly hooked up, it is hooked up to the house, and it's being used, like I said, similar to other types of, you know, machines that you might see in the side yard of a house. So, I'm struggling with this one. So, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss this one, but like I said, there may be, there may be other violations that exist. You just haven't cited them here. All right. Okay, so, I'll restart this case. Well, that'll be up to you and Mr. Ron, and your supervisors. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-049, A through, wait, where are these bound together? It's the same address, but they're different case numbers. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we have DEL 25-049, A through, E. My name is Tina Pagana. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This case will be number DEL 25-049, A, BLD 25-0267, DEL 25-049, letter B, BLD 25-0268, DEL 25-49, C, BLD 25-0269, DEL 25-049, D, which is the repeat LTM 25-0155, DEL 25-049, DEL 25-025-0157. The City of Deltona v. Brian Cain rummaging. The property address is 1197 Acorn Court Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-0022-00270. This property is being brought before the special manager for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. I have A, B, and C, which is all in the same violation, just different items, thanks. Violation City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action set, I mean, corrective action set violation is screened disclosure, repair or remove structure for A. For B, it is corrective action is shed repair or remove structure. For C, corrective action for set violation is fence repair or remove structure. Violation D, City of Deltona Ordinance Section 38-110B2, which states that accumulation of waste, yard trash, rubble, and or debris declared to be nuisance and must be abated in the entirety. Correction action for set violation is disposed of property or stored inside an enclosed building. Violation E, City of Deltona Ordinance Section 38-110B2, which states that nuisance weeds where the greater portion of the weeds on the lot exceeds 12 inches in height and declared to be a nuisance and must be abated in their entirety. Correction action set for violation is mow the yard and maintain lawn so that the grass and weeds do not exceed 12 inches in height. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of co-violations were certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property in at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence of this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to a special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This case initiated on March 12, 2025, upon visiting the property, I observed all the violations listed above. On April 12, I spoke to the resident, Brian, who indicated that he would clean up the debris and achieve compliance with applicable violations. Over the past couple months, I conducted a follow-up inspection and all the violations continued to persist. Please be advised that violation D is a repeated violation due to prior issues related to debris and maintenance on the property. The city would like to request 60 days for the violation A, B, C, and E, property to come into compliance or a fine of $100 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. And violation D, to resume fines tomorrow for $50 a day due to it being a repeat. Okay. So, you said 60 days for violations A through C and E. Correct. And you are suggesting $100 a day per violation? I'm sorry. It would be $100 per day for A, B, C, and E. Like total? Total. Correct. So, it would be, okay, so $25 per each. Correct, $25 each. Just a moment with the file here. Can you walk me through, so violation A is accessory structure for the screen enclosure? I can't, I'm not even sure I see that. Yeah, for the screen enclosure, which will be, right there, it's actually, that's it. Right here, see? Oh, okay. This is the screen. I see it. All right, thank you. And then the shed, is this the shed? It's hard to tell. It's right, this is the shed. This is the shed right here. He has a bunch of debris on top of his tires and all type of miscellaneous items, which he said he was going to clean, and he still hasn't. There's a ladder here that climbs up. There's a bunch of things here. Okay. And the shed is disrepair right here. Is the roof collapsing? Yes. Are the wall, and are the walls kind of buckling in? It looks slanted right here, like it was going downwards. The walls are slanted. Mm-hmm. Okay. And the fence? The fence is right here. Oh, okay, so just basically the pickets are remaining. Correct. Correct. The posts. The posts come. All right. The question I have on the repeat is, okay, so there is an affidavit of compliance. So he came into compliance, trying to find the date. It looks like July 12th of 2023. Is that right? Can you tell the date they came into compliance? July, July 12th, 2023. Oh, I'm sorry. It's May 23rd, 2023. All right. Okay. So we have an affidavit of compliance that he did come into compliance with the debris around the property, and it's accumulated again. And is this picture, I'm just trying to get an idea of what he will have to do to come in in compliance. And is this the only debris we're talking about? No, I have several pictures. Okay. Yeah. There's quite a bit. Thank you. All right. And then, can you show me the picture of the weeds again that you're referring to that are exceeding the 12 inches? Right here. This area here. And in the back will be this area here. Okay. Right here. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of, I'm going to be specific here. So, I find the respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged for violations A through C and E. And that respondent shall correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on July 28th, 2025, which is actually 61 days. In the event respondent does not comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25 per day for each of those violations, or $100 total, will be imposed for each day. The violations continue past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. In addition, with respect to violation D, I find respondent in this case in repeat violation of the city code as charged based on the board, the special magistrate's prior order, entered against the respondent for the same violation. And a fine of $50 per day is hereby imposed from the date that you noticed this, this was May 11th, correct? No. No? Uh-uh. The first date was actually, was it March, wait, hold on. This was not the same. It was May 11th, I can't even get you these days. I think I saw on the- March 20th. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that's not it. Sorry. March 12th, I'm sorry. Okay. March 12th. Yes. So a fine of $50 per day is hereby imposed from March 12th, 2025, and shall continue until there is compliance. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code enforcement, or code, excuse me, code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I think that's it. All right. I think we covered all of them. Yep. They did. Thank you. If you can- All right. The next case is DEL 25-050, 1740 Fort Smith Boulevard. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Joseph Marjimenez. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-050, the City of Deltona v. Tibete's Lenora EST. The property address is 1740 Fort Smith Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-009-360-050. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 66-9, subsection 3, which states that boats, trailers, recreational vehicles shall not be parked or stored either within a public right-of-way or within that portion of the lot, lying across the full width of the lot between the front line and the front most part of the principal structure. The corrective action for this said violation is to park the trailer on the side of the house, behind the front face, or the rear yard. Please move the trailer to proper parking area to remove from the property or remove from the property. All vehicles must have current tag and be operable, or they must be stored in an enclosed garage. 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 appraiser 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 they were taken. This case started on March 15, 2025, when I received a complaint from a reporting party of multiple violations existing on this property, one of which is the trailer placed in the front yard. I noticed the registration for the trailer was still up to date, so I attempted to try to reach out to the owner of the property and it was unsuccessful. I proceeded on leaving a courtesy notice on the front door and set up a re-inspection date for the following week. On March 22nd, I arrived at the location to find the trailer still in the same place it was before the week prior. I proceeded to post a notice of violation onto the property along with sending a notice out certified mail. On April 2nd, I arrived at the location for re-inspection after the attendee compliance date to find no change. The trailer remains parked on the front yard section of the property. I also visited the property again on April 26th and then posted a notice of hearing on May 1st onto the property, also verifying no change of the trailer being moved. I verified today that the trailer continues to be parked on the front yard and I have not yet been able to get in contact with the owners of the property. Okay, thank you. And you said this is from today as well, this picture? It's still there? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay, yeah, thank you. I think my only question is, do you know, so the beginning of this section, 66-19, it is talking about when utility trailers can be parked and it says it's permitted to be parked on any lot within the A, R1, R1, A, A, A, A, A, R1, B, R, E, 1, et cetera, basically listing the zoning districts. Do you know the zoning district that we're talking about? I just know it's residential. I didn't look up the zoning, but let me double check. Is that something that you're able to look up and come back to me after we do the next case? Yeah. Why don't we do that? Okay. We'll pause this for just a moment and we'll go on to the next one. Sounds good. Thank you. Well, she's also the next one. They found out for me. It's R1. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So since it's R1, I do believe that this type of parking is prohibited. So can you remind me then, we said, did you recommend $25 per day? Yes. I was getting to the closing. The city would like to request 14 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. Thank you. All right. I'm going to fine respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on June 11th, 2025, which is 14 days. And 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 4th day to date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. That's the last one. This is DEL 25-055, 1697 Sumatra Avenue. Go ahead. I'm reading this in for the officer that did the inspection and investigation on this property, Bashir Turksees. My name is Todd Meade. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer, supervisor. This will be case DEL 25-055. The city of Deltona v. Carmen D. and Carlos A. Torellis. The property address is 1697 Sumatra Ave, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-009-130-100. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, Florida building code for no permit, violation of the latest, excuse me, 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 insulation 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 fence. Applications must be submitted to the city of Deltona or Providence Boulevard. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations sent in certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked. This is a proactive case that was opened on March 11th of 2025. While addressing other violations at the property, the officer noticed a newly installed fence with no permit on file. A door hanger was left at the same, left the same day explaining the violation and the corrective action. A notice of violation was later posted and sent certified mail on March 19th of 2020. Giving the property owner until March 28th of 2025 to come into compliance. As of today, the property remains in violation. There was no permit today at 2 o'clock. Checking the city records, no submittal for any permit application for an offense. 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. Thank you. I 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 June 27th, 2025, which is 30 days. 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 aforesaid date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is that it? Okay. Anything else for the good of the order before we adjourn? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.