Special Magistrate on 2025-06-25 5:30 PM - Jun 25, 2025

The first thing on the agenda is roll call, so I will have all of the Code Compliance Officers introduce themselves. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Danny Rock, Code Compliance Manager. Sam Schaller, Deputy Fire Marshal. Ajoria Bailey, Fire Inspector. Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor. Todd Bede, Code Compliance Supervisor. Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. To the United States 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. Do I need to do anything with that? Okay. 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 violation of the Deltona City Code that is 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 filing a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court within 30 days of the execution of my order pursuant to Florida Statute 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. And you should have received a copy of your case file when you came in this evening. If you did not, please let me know. However, I will admit the case file and PowerPoint unless a specific objection is received. I will take the cases generally in the order that you signed in, first come, first served. And I do have several cases that I need to announce that have been withdrawn or continued. So I have fire 020-2025. There's no address for that one. But do you have an address for that one? Okay, 667 Deltona Boulevard, Fire 021-2025, 2160 Howland Boulevard, Suite 108, DEL 25-011, Massey Case 1364 Rock Hill Street, DEL 25-024, 1264 Seagate Drive, DEL 25-056, 2811 Arendanda Drive, DEL 25-062, 2960 Norwick Street, DEL 25-064, 2558 Collingswood, and DEL 25-065, 3240 Elkham Boulevard. Those are with the withdrawn cases. So if you are here for any of those cases that I just mentioned, you do not need to stay. We will not be hearing your case this evening. In addition, we have one continued case, which is DEL 25-058, 1611 Giffen Avenue. So again, if you are here for that case, you do not need to stay. We will not be hearing that case this evening. I will go ahead and swear in everyone who intends to testify today as a group, which includes the code compliance officers. So if you intend to speak to me tonight, can you please stand, if you are able, 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. I have no ex-party communications to disclose, and we will go ahead and get started with the cases. All right. This is DEL 25-042 A&B, 1114 Cambridge Street. Good evening. Special Magistrate, this is Gemma Torcivia, City Attorney, on behalf of the City. Good evening. Hello. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. My name is Joseph Mar Jimenez, and I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be DEL, this will be case number DEL 25-042 A&B, the City of Deltona v. Fred Kelly II. The property address is 1114 Cambridge Street, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-009-160-140. This property is being brought before the Special Magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. Violation A, this is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make an application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The corrective action for said violation is you must either A, demolish the structure, in this case the retaining seawall, or B, obtain an updated boundary survey and riparian survey, as well as all other required documentation to attempt to permit the structure. Applications must be submitted to the City of Deltona. The structure must meet all requirements of City ordinance and be approved on final inspection. Violation B is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 58-31, which states that the use of any city right-of-way, including appendages, and the use of any public lands under the authority of City Commission, except for their intended purpose, without prior written consent of the city, shall be prohibited. Correction for said violation is you must either A, demolish the structure, in this case the retaining seawall, or B, obtain an updated boundary survey and riparian survey, as well as all other required documentation to attempt to permit the structure. Applications must be submitted to the City of Deltona. The structure must meet all requirements of the City ordinance and be approved on final inspection. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the Notice of Hearing and Notice of Code Violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to 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 true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. These cases originally started on May 24, 2024, when a reporting party called Code Compliance, stating that there was a seawall in the lake being built at this location. I arrived at the location to investigate this report, where I noticed a pile of rocks next to the driveway, along with wooden boards and construction equipment, but I was unable to see the constructed wall, since it was located at the rear of the property and the homeowner was not home. I left a courtesy notice along with my card for Mr. Kelly to reach back out to me. Upon further investigation, I reached out to the permitting department, and I did see a permit on file for the installation of 12 helical piers for foundation repair stabilization, which I was informed it was for the home itself, not for the seawall. On May 29, 2024, I spoke with Mr. Kelly over the phone, and he came to City Hall that day to speak with permitting, where he was able to set up a scheduled meeting on July of 2024 with the building official, the deputy public works director, and the code compliance manager at his property to view the structure. At this point, the owner was informed that engineer drawings will have to be made, along with filing for a permit. Since the property involves a lake, the owner informed me that his land is being eroded into the lake, and therefore is the reason why the wall was built. I also verified with the planning and zoning department that in that area of the lake where the erosion wall was built, it is owned by the city. I informed Mr. Kelly that the property needs to be surveyed to confirm that if it is office property, it needs to be removed at this time. The owner will then have the responsibility to remove the structure and restore the shoreline, or obtain an updated boundary survey and repairing survey, as well as all other required documentation to attempt to permit the structure. Mr. Kelly explained to me that he is not able to get engineer drawings due to the fact that he needs an updated survey, and the survey is not going to show that he owns that piece of property where the erosion wall was built. So no engineer drawings can be done. And he also informed me that it will cost him over $5,000, and he can't or shouldn't have to get a permit for something that's not on his property. He states that he needs the erosion wall to stop his land from being eroded into the lake. The lake is acting like a sub-pump, and when the levels rise and fall, it is sucking the soil from beneath his home property. The owner was informed by our deputy public works director during her visit to the property that measurements found the retaining wall is 50 feet plus outside the footprint of his property, which falls into the city's right away. The retaining wall extends well past his property and does not provide or improve access to the body of water. And as far as we know, this homeowner did the construction as a DIY project with no engineered plans or updated surveys and did not obtain proper permitting for this construction. I informed the owner that had he pursued a permit with the city, there would have been nothing precluding him from constructing within his property boundary, but not on the city's right away. In March of this year, 2025, I was able to have a meeting with my manager, supervisor, and public works director to consult with our city attorney about the correct ways to approach this case, and I then informed the property owner over the phone that we will be taking this case as a special magistrate. A notice of violation was posted onto the property March 21, 2025, and sent out certified mail, and then a notice of hearing, which I posted onto the property on June 6, 2025, and sent out certified mail. Mr. Kelly and I have been in communication, and he has tried to show me proof via emails that he's been trying to work with the engineers in getting the surveys and permits, but has not done so fully at this time. It has been about 13 months since this case originally opened in hopes that the resident would work with the city, and thus far we have been unable to obtain compliance. The city would like to request 60 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day per violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Thank you. For the city attorney, did you want to add anything before I ask questions? I do. Before I start, I just want to ask, the evidence that the code officer has entered, will the special magistrate accept it as entered, or should I go through and have it admitted individually? Well, I usually in my ruling will say that I'm admitting the case file. Is that what you're asking me to do, just what's in the case file? Yes. Yeah, I will do that when I make my ruling. Okay. I just wanted to point out a few things, if I may. So there's just a couple things that we wanted to go over. The first one is on the issue of notice. As our code officer testified, proper notice was provided to Mr. Kelly. There is tracking information in the packet demonstrating that the notice, the mail notice was delivered to Mr. Kelly's address and left with an individual there. We also have entered an affidavit of service in which our officer posted the notice of hearing on the front door of the property on June 6th, 2025 at approximately 12.04 p.m. And the notice of the hearing as it relates to this case was also sent via certified mail to the property owner. In addition, the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were posted at City Hall in the normal standard place that notices are posted at least 10 days prior to today's hearing. So on the issue of notice, the city has fully complied. I also want to just take a little bit of a step back here and talk through this case because our officer has done an excellent job. This case has been pending for 13 months and candidly, this property owner has had more than enough time to come into compliance. And I think part of the challenge here is that maybe they don't understand what the issue is, although they do have an attorney. So I would hope that their attorney has told them. I will tell you that before this hearing, I emailed their attorney and called him in an attempt to try to get on the same page before the hearing. But unfortunately, he did not return my call, although he did email me. I will tell you that the wall was constructed without permission by the city in the lake. The lake is owned by the city. And as I'm sure you know, special magistrate, any work that's constructed in the lake that occurs on city property not only is subject to the city, but it's subject to the related environmental authorities, which in this case would be St. John's Water Management District. They were not involved in the construction of this wall. And the city engineer, David Hamstra, had communications with Ms. Wallace, our assistant deputy public works director, just to let her know that there are impacts to building things in a lake, which is why when you go to build something in a lake, you have to have engineering. And that was not in place for this wall. There also would need to be written reporting to ensure that all of the work that is completed is in accordance with both city, county, and state regulations. Not only did his homeowner just, frankly, willy-nilly throw a wall up on property that wasn't his own, he has since tried to take a number of actions, but none of those actions are anywhere close to the law. So he has attempted to ask for a variance, has said that this isn't an easement and he wants to construct it on an easement. You cannot request a variance for property you do not own. That is not permitted in our city code. So that's not a choice. You cannot build on an easement that is not your own. And particularly if we did have an easement, he would need our permission. The city has informed this gentleman on more than one occasion via staff and the city attorney that the city does not permit people to build on city property. They have also informed him that he is welcome to come to a city commission meeting and ask for permission. He has not done that. Not only has he not done that, but we would certainly not recommend that he be allowed to build a wall in a lake with no engineering, no approval from the city, no approval from St. John's Water Management District, and effectively take the position that because his property is sliding in the lake, which again, he did have permission to build on his property and install these, I believe, 12, I'm not quite sure what they're called, effectively pilings, on his property and he elected to do this instead. I mean, this case is, I mean, candidly, I think the code officer was very nice by imposing, requesting an imposition of a fine of $25 a day, but he's had 13 months to comply. He's been told he needs to remove the seawall. He has not removed the seawall. He has not submitted engineering to move it onto his property. And candidly, the expenses that the city has incurred with respect to engineering, legal, are mounting. And so I would strongly urge you to consider a more serious approach. Certainly, we would be happy to give him time to remove the wall. But this sort of fanciful idea that you can get a variance on property that's not your own or build on an easement that you don't own, even with permission, is out of order. There's also a little, I mean, and Mr. Huggins, I'm certainly, you're able to speak when it's your opportunity, but you sent me a survey earlier today that was dated 6-15-15. And thank you so much. And I think you might have sent that to me in error because the survey that you had provided to the Planning and Zoning Department, I guess when you requested a variance, was updated in 9-18-2019 and 4-22-2025. And I'm happy to send this in if they don't have this admitted. But not only does that survey show that the seawall, it does show the seawall that it's well outside his property line, it also shows a shed that was built outside his property line. So I'm sure that that was an inadvertent error, but this is not the conduct that we would expect from a homeowner and certainly not the conduct we would expect when they've had this much time to come into compliance. With that, I'm happy to, obviously the staff and I are happy to answer any questions you might have. All right. I do have a question. So where in, is there anything in the packet that actually is evidence that the city owns this property? where the seawall is located because I'm not seeing it. And I, you know, can't rely on hearsay testimony only. I do not believe it is in the package. Although, give me one moment. I'll let staff answer. Your Honor, I have a map here, the plat. Okay. But then that's not in my code enforcement file, correct? I'm not seeing it. No, ma'am. I've made copies in case you wanted to see them. Okay. I would like to see it. Okay. Yes. We'll make sure you get a copy. Okay. And so tell me, where am I looking on this plat? What lot is owned by this gentleman? Okay. I'll give you a moment. I'll give you time to speak in just a moment, but let me ask my question. Staff, are you able to walk her through this? Me? Can you state your name for the record? My name is Chad Tate. I'm the building official. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If you look at where Lake Shelby is? Yes. Lot 14. Okay. That's where the gentleman's property is. Okay. And where on this plat does it tell me that the lake is owned by the city? So, Your Honor, if I may share my screen, I have on the property appraiser's website, and I'm happy to download this and send this to you, but I do have the property appraiser's site, which shows the subject parcel and then the lake, which is owned by the city. Would that be permissible? Well, you can show me, but I'm not, I mean, I don't know that the property appraiser is necessarily definitive evidence that the city owns the property. Okay. I hear you. So, this is the subject parcel, 1114 Cambridge Street that we're here on today. Can you see this on your screen? I cannot see that. I mean, it's very difficult for me to see the screen over there to begin with. So, I don't see. Okay. You can see a visual, but can you see my screen, I guess, is a better question. Yes, I can see it now. Okay. So, this little parcel is the subject parcel, 1114 Cambridge. And again, while I'm doing this, staff, if somebody wants to go and print this out, you could print three copies, one for the property owner and one for the special magistrate, that'd be great. This is 1114 Cambridge Street. So, this is the subject property. This is the property that we're here on today. This is the lake. It's called Shelby Lake. And this lake is a parcel that is owned by the city of Deltona, which is 2345 Providence Boulevard. I'm happy to do this more info so we can get more info. So, this more info takes us to this page. Can you see this, Your Honor? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Can you see this map on the property of Baser's site? The aerial? The aerial. Yes. With a little green pin in the middle. Yeah. So, this is Shelby Lake. So, what I did is I clicked on the map to more info and it took me here. So, as you can see, sorry, keep zooming in, the owner is the city of Deltona. And again, staff is, I believe, going to print a copy of this for you and Mr. Kelly and his council so that they can see it as well. Although, candidly, I don't think there is a dispute that this lake is owned by the city. But certainly, we have competent, substantial evidence that it is owned by the city. And again, I would not, I do not think that's a fact that's in dispute. Okay. I guess, you know, looking at the, can you go back to, I think, one of the screenshots that you had was of the boundary line of the owner of Lot 14. Can you go back to that? Because it looked, so my question is, it looked like there was quite a bit of property that was between the water body lake and the boundary. You're talking about my PowerPoint? Yeah, the PowerPoint. Okay, yes ma'am. The PowerPoint? You're talking about this, my PowerPoint? Yes, the code and for it, the PowerPoint. Yes, there you go. So, you have a boundary line and quite a bit of property kind of land, I guess, in between the water mark of the lake and, okay, that's just not really shown on the plat. I have the survey that the applicants submitted to planning and zoning. I don't know if they're going to present it, but I do have it here and we can print it and share copies as well, although it is there, record. I'm going to pull that up. Your Honor, can you see that? It's a survey, a boundary survey? Yeah, yes. I mean, I can see that it's there. I cannot read it. Okay. Yeah, no, that's okay. So, I'm just going to zoom in so you can see what this says. So, this is a boundary survey certified to Mr. Fred A. Kelly II. It has the property address over here, 1114 Cambridge Street. And then I'm going to scroll down to the bottom. Now, this shows that it was originally taken on 6-15-2015. I just want to make sure you can see that. That's at the very bottom, the original survey date. And then it was updated twice. So, as you can see in this red over here, it was updated 9-18-2019 and 4-22-2025. So, this survey, and again, staff, it would be great if you guys could print this and give copies to the respective parties. This is, this is provided by Mr. Kelly through, I believe, council to the city's planning and zoning department, this survey. This shows the property. This shows the property line. It shows the approximate flood zone line, the ordinary high water line, and then the edge of the water. It also shows the seawall, which is obviously well outside of his property. So, this, go ahead. Does it, does it identify that it's the city that owns that property on the survey? It does not, but it does identify that it is not owned by, that it is not part of this property. Yes. So, it does not say owned by the city, but it does say this is your property line and obviously what's been built is well outside of the property line. Can we get you hard copies of this? I mean, I will say, I'm reading the plat. It, I think it raises questions. It says, the lake as shown on the attached plat, is hereby dedicated to the joint use of the owners, abutting or, abutting said, I think abutting said lake and said owners shall have the right to full access use and enjoyment of said lake for swimming, fishing, boating, and other lawful uses. Also, the waters of said lake are hereby dedicated to the governing municipal authority for the purpose of permitting unlimited activity in the installation and maintenance required in the drainage of the land covered by this plat. So, no one is disputing that Mr. Kelly has access to fish or boat. That's not the issue here. But he does not have, does not have access to construct. Again, you cannot construct any body of water without permission, not only from the city, but from St. John's Water Management District. I mean, we all know that Volusia County has a flooding problem and Deltona in particular. You can't just be building permanent structures willy-nilly with no engineering, with no approval by any government body in a lake. It's, I mean, the plat certainly does not dedicate the ability to construct to the property owner. It dedicates it to the government. And the government did not build that seawall and the government position is that that seawall needs to be removed and that he's had more than enough time to do so. All right. I'm going to go ahead and hear from the property owner at this time. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you. There we go. Yes. Arthur Huggins on behalf of property owner at 1114 Cambridge Street. Your Honor, I'll just address this quickly here in regards to this plat. If you also read under that next paragraph that you pointed out, it also reserves the rear 10 feet wide and 6 feet wide at the size of each lot is reserved to the Mackerel Brothers Inc. So I think that also calls into question ownership of the city. In regards to notice, Your Honor, the requirements of the Florida Statute 1062.06 first requires the person who reports the violation to disclose who they are. I don't believe the city has met 162.06B. And as indicated by staff, this case has been remained pending for quite a long time and it's not because of Mr. Kelly. It's actually because the city could not figure out the legal position that they wanted to take in regards to the structure that was built. Florida law is clear, very clear, and I can provide you with three different cases that Mr. Kelly has littoral rights to build at his boundary. And Florida law states, and I'll reference you to BB Inlet Property LLC versus 920 North Stanley Partners, 293 Southern 538, and it's clear that once the water recedes and there's a new boundary that is established, that becomes the property's owner, littoral rights. He can build whatever he wants to build there. He can build a dock, he can build a seawall if he chooses to do so, and I'll provide you with those three cases for reference. The main case, I'm, have you shared these cases with the city attorney? I have not, but I can give him a copy if he needs a copy. Okay. But no, I have not shared these with the city attorney. I had one brief conversation with him last week in which, you know, we pretty much didn't get anywhere there. The city has already decided that they're not going to let Mr. Kelly even attempt to make a permit, and that's another issue with the notice. And the notice, it's giving him options to come into compliance. However, the city has applied a prior restraint to him coming into compliance. Why? They won't allow him to apply for a variance. They won't allow him to apply for a permit. He hasn't even been able to put an application in and be denied. He's been denied from applying. That's a prior restraint on Mr. Kelly's rights. Not only that, again, 162.06 is clear on what's required to even establish a violation, and that is disclosing who made the initial complaint. I don't see that in the packet at all. referring to the prohibition on anonymous complaints? Yes, Judge. Well, did you make a records request for the complaint that started the case? No, I haven't made a record request for it, but there's none in the file. It's been provided to me. Well, they're not required to provide it to you unless you are asking for it. I mean, can the city speak to how this case arose, and whether or not it arose from an anonymous complaint or not? She did actually testify that it arose from an anonymous complaint a little bit earlier. Maybe I misunderstood that. I don't think you said that, but go ahead. Yes, at the beginning of my speech, it was a complaint from a reporting party. So, I guess someone saw it and saw that Mr. Kelly was constructing the wall, and decided to call Code Compliance Department and file a complaint. That information is on file, but again, that would be public records. Mr. Kelly and his counsel never did a public records request for that information. All right. Well, I'm not going to go back and forth, but I mean, the allegation is that it's arising from an anonymous complaint, which is prohibited by statute. So, I do, you know, need to have evidence of how the complaint arose. If you'd like to take a brief recess and come back, we can do that. I mean, am I, is it to disclose who made the complaint? Because that's in the public records. Yes. It's in the case, but it might. But it's not in my file, is it? Let me double check. That wouldn't be in the case detailed report, right? It would be in here. Your Honor, is it okay if we do take a, how long of a recess would we be looking at? Well, what I would propose is we could take maybe a 10-minute recess and come back. I could do another case or two in between. That sounds great. I'm sorry? That sounds great. We would appreciate that. Your Honor, I can give that information to you in just a second. Okay. If you can find the information quickly. Judge, I can continue with my case law. All right, go ahead. In the Cardi v. Regions Court of Appeal 4th District, the court outlined the landowner, upland landowners littoral rights and what they're inclined to be able to exercise. It says, based on Florida Supreme Court's early description of the nature of littoral rights, it is evident that littoral rights to accretion and reliction is distinct from rights to access, use, and view. The right to access and use and view are rights relating to present use of the foreshore and the water. That is not true for the right to accretion and reliction. Right to accretion and reliction is contingent upon future interest that only becomes possessory if and when the land is added to upland by accretion or reliction. This is a case of accretion in which he's added to the soil of the land. It says, accretions are additions of allusion to the waterfront land, relictions are lands once covered by the water that becomes dry when the water recedes. In this case, the water receded and became dry behind his land. The United States Supreme Court has noted in Florida that common law, the littoral owner automatically takes title to dry land added to his property by accretion. Any other rule would leave. I'm going to interrupt you quickly. How do you know that this is dry land that has been accrued by accretion? What evidence do you have to show me that? I have pictures of the land. Okay. You're going to present that? Yes, as well as the survey. The survey clearly lands out, well spells out where the water is currently at, which is at his seawall. Can I also ask, but before you, I just want to get my question out. even if I assume that there are literal rights here, my understanding of literal rights is that you would have the ability to build, let's say, a dock or a pier or another structure to actually reach the navigable area of the lake. You might have viewing rights, but I'm not aware that there are legal rights to build a seawall. Yes, this case that I'm relying on is actually an alluvium that's separating the upland land, which is a structure. So it's not just, and that's why I read that first part to you about rights to access, use, and view. That's one right. But under the littoral rights, he has more than just access, use, and view. He has a right to accretion, I'm sorry, reliction and accretion, which is adding the soil to his land, and making sure that the property is not subjected to erosion. This is the creation of the wall. So that's where, in regards to his littoral rights, he's entitled to do so. And that goes, again, to his constitutional rights as a landowner, as an upstream landowner to the lake. But let's, let me cut right to the chase here. How does that, even if that's all true, is it, I mean, you're conceding correct that there was no building permit that was obtained to build this wall? Yes, Judge. So as I stated earlier, they are in one, in the violation to comply, they are saying attempt to get a permit. When he goes to attempt, which I have an email, and he's been there in person, when he's went to attempt to get a permit, he's been denied from applying, because they're saying it's not on your property, so we won't even take an application from you. So that's an issue in regards to saying you can come into compliance by doing this, but we're not going to let you do it. Well, one of the other options that is given is obviously to remove the structure. Yes. It was built without, I mean, I don't think any, it sounds like you're not disputing that it was built without a permit. We're not disputing that it was built without a permit, but we are disputing that he's not been given his due process to come into compliance. So in order to give due process to come into compliance, he needs to have an application, and that application needs to be denied, and they need to be able to reference why it's denied. I've asked for any ordinance or any permitted use that's on his land that he's actually in violation of, and they have not pointed to one. Only thing that they pointed to is a code in the building code that says you cannot, put a structure up without a permit. Not only that, Your Honor, the other citation that they cite to chapter 58, it says on a public easement, this is not a public easement. So that violation is not even correct law as far as the ordinance goes. This is not a public easement. It says, and the use of any public lands under the authority of the city commission, not just easement. Right, but there's no public land. Okay, so you are asserting that the property is not owned by the city, it's owned by your client. I'm asserting that he has the new boundary, he has rights to that as far as littoral rights to build a structure on his boundary. Again, in regards to what the current survey that was required by the city, which he came into compliance with that, but they didn't, again, allow him to apply for the permit, but he did get the surveys as requested, and when he tried to submit those to the city, they wouldn't take them. So, according to the survey, it shows where the water is, and it shows where the seawall is, and that's at the boundary of his new property line, which is where the water has receded to. What documents are you going to ask me to admit into the record? Because it sounds to me like you have surveys and other documents. Yes, Judge. I have quite a few documents. One document that I have is going to show you the other properties that sit on the lake, and it's going to show you that those properties also have seawalls, and it's going to show that those seawalls are outside of what supposedly their land's boundaries. They showed you a wide view of the lake, and you'll see on that lake, if he goes back to it, you'll see on that lake, there's other properties that have seawalls that are just like Mr. Kelly's, and they're outside of what the appraiser is reflecting to be outside of their property. And none of those owners have applied for a permit. None of those owners have been cited for a violation. In this case, it's only Mr. Kelly's property that's been cited. How do you know that, sir? We can look. We can show you the process. Wait, pause. I'm not sure. Can you state your name? If you're going to speak, you have to state your name and address for the record. Yes, good evening. My name is Mr. Leal. I'm a structural engineer, and I used to be the deputy director of public works here. And the reason that I'm saying that is that I tried to submit the permits for engineering, and they did not let me do it. And the other thing is that the product that is used there is approved by the state of Florida to be used in the state of Florida, and it was constructed properly. So I'm willing to certify that, and I'm not being given the opportunity to do that because the city says that it's on their property. And the other thing is to remove it, you still need a permit. But there's four other seawalls on that lake. So the city's being arbitrary, they're being capricious, and it's wrong, unjust too. Well, do you, I mean, I don't know whether or not the city has any active code enforcement cases against the others. I guess I'm not really sure how that's totally relevant. But... Can I ask the city if they can provide... You may ask them. Can the city please provide proof that the other wall permitted... I can tell you that we do have open cases on those properties across the lake? I cannot answer that question. That is dealt with a different officer. I apologize, Your Honor. Can we ask the code officer Chad to testify? Because I spoke to him yesterday, and he said something contrary to what she said. You can't ask him to testify. Well, I understand that, but he represents the city, and he said he did not know if they had permits. Ma'am, this is just my understanding here, and I want to give you how this case came to. Can you step closer to the microphone? Sorry, yeah. I want to give to you how this case came about. So this case came about was my house was sinking in after Hurricane Ian. We had a foundation company come out because there was foundation issues. The house was actually sinking on the backside. The foundation company came out, Alpha Foundations, we're going to submit into you their reports and their things, their permits, and they said that I needed a helical pillar and an erosion control wall. The salesman or the engineer or whatever he was that came into the house at that time told me, he said, you have the option to build it yourself, the erosion control wall or we can build that or we can have a contractor come out and build that. I said, fine, I will do that. It was under my assumption that that wall was underneath the original permit. Once they got their inspections done, everything was done there, the wall was still being built at that time when the inspectors came out to do the helical pillars at that time. They had access to it at that time as well. The city had access to it at that time as well when the helical pillars permit was filed. I don't have the time exactly, but it was when the first original code compliance was made against me. I stopped all construction. I spoke with Officer Jimenez about that. I said, okay, we won't do anything else. She asked me to go file a permit. I came down to file a permit at that time. When I came down to file a permit, they told me at that time that I needed to speak to zoning. Zoning told me I was unable to file a permit because it's on their land. At that time, this is how I got into contact with this engineer. He was standing next to me at that time and he said, I can help you engineer the wall. I had let them know that I was attempting to engineer the wall. He did all the things. I got him all the things that were supposed to have happened for him to understand how I built the wall. We did that. We contacted the city. The city again said he asked for the city permission to build on that easement if they are considering it their land. The city did not give me any responses to that. In October, I came to a city council meeting here. I spoke to Doc Daughtry. I spoke to the previous city attorney. I spoke to two of the city commissioners that were at that meeting. The previous city attorney told me that I have littoral rights to that land. We're sitting right there. Doc Daughtry at that time said, hey, I need to take a little bit further look into this and understand what we have in all departments. I said, okay, absolutely. October went, November went, December went, next thing you know, March is here. I haven't heard from anybody from the city in that time frame and that lapse of time. Then I get another code violation saying the same thing that the first code violation said. I said, okay. I contacted Officer Jimenez at that time and left a voicemail. I contacted her supervisor and left a voicemail. This is when I had three they got back to me on April 2nd and said, hey, we understand that you're trying to get the survey. I have emails to prove this as well, ma'am. And you're going to have the survey. The surveyor said, I have about two weeks until I can get that survey to you because I'm busy right now. I said, absolutely. He said, they're asking for a riparian survey. The seawall is at. And I said, okay, absolutely. We'll go with that. He got that survey done on 425. I submitted to the city. The city said, we're going in front of the special magistrate. That was the last time I came to see you. The city filed a continuance because they weren't prepared to present the case. So here we are today. For a year and a half, their attorney has stated that they've given me time. I've complied with every ask of the city the entire way. They asked me for an engineering plan. I get the engineering but they can't engineer because we're waiting on the city. They asked me to permit. I can't permit. Matter of fact, yesterday I came in to see if I could permit again. I was denied again yesterday the ability to permit again. Heather was the permitting officer's name. She sent me to zoning. I spoke to David Webster. David Webster had me email him the survey. Then I spoke to his supervisor Jordan Smith who both said you cannot even apply for the permit. So I've been denied the opportunity to even apply for the permit. Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Kelly does not have riparian rights. He just admitted that on the record. That's incorrect as well because the analysis for that hinges upon whether the ordinary high water line is within his property line. And it is not. So you have a survey with you. I'm happy to share my screen again. But when we ask for a survey and you give us a survey that shows that the land is not yours, of course you cannot have a permit because your survey does not show that the land is yours. So I'm going to pull it up again and we can walk through this. So this is the survey that you all provided to us. And I believe there's a hard copy that you all have as well. Your property ends here. The ordinary high water line is this green line here. This is outside of your property line. That is why you do water line is not within your property. If this green line was here, your argument would make sense. But this green line is not in your property line, which is why you do not have those rights. And that property is not yours. So thank you for getting the survey because I know you were attempting to keep this wall and not have to take it down. And we wanted to be helpful to you. However, when you give us a survey that shows that the land is not yours, of course we will not issue you a permit. That's like if you had given us a survey and you had tried to build a fence on your neighbor's property and you kept giving us a permit but your survey showed your land ended here and the fence you were constructing was to the left over here by this lot 15 block 329. No matter how many times you try to submit a permit to put a permit issued because you can't get a permit or variance for property that is not yours and your survey that you have presented shows that this property is not yours and your argument does not I don't want to say hold water because I'm not trying to be flip about this because the ordinary high water line is not within your property line as evidenced by this survey. Perfect. Can you please put back the thing that you submitted earlier with the entire lake with the property appraiser please? I'm sorry what? I think we gave you a hard copy. No it's a shutter picture that you did with all of the water the boundary lines from the city from the property appraiser does not show boundary lines you show general marks I need to see the whole lake I'm asking for you to show the whole lake where it shows Lake Shelby's boundary lines please I don't have a map that you just showed that two minutes ago sir your survey that's not a boundary that's not a boundary map that's what you relied on to say that it was a boundary line that demonstrated that it was owned by the city ma'am what I'm asking for is him to please show us all the all the houses around the lake with the property appraiser website correct that does not show property boundaries that shows ownership of properties sir I just want to see the thing that you submitted earlier with all of the properties on the lake I may be using the wrong term I'm not asking for the term I'm just asking for the image that you showed earlier this image here no the real satellite imagery of Lake Shelby please Danny let me ask You're talking about the plat that the code officer gave you I'm not understanding what you're looking for You use the property appraiser site to make your argument that the city owns this lake it's a satellite photograph you put a little green dot in the center yes the property appraiser website that you brought up okay so Danny just so you know I sent that to you so you can print it out and give it to everybody I don't have that satellite image but what I sent you to give to everybody is this and I'm happy to put this up but I don't actually think it's going to show anything that adds value but happy to put this up other than the fact that it's owned by the city while we're waiting you all did receive the plat and the survey right correct that's our we gave that to the city okay I'm just making sure you have the documents you may I approach with these pictures they'll get it from you if you want to you're welcome to admit evidence I'm not quite sure what you want this is what I sent in to you and the special magistrate to evidence that it's owned by the city of Deltona that the lake Shelby Lake that this parcel ID is owned by the city of Deltona so I'm not quite sure what you're looking for you're welcome to admit your own evidence I'm not trying to stop you I did yes sir thank you you want me to take this down ma'am in your in your hand you have an image of multiple properties on the lake that show the property appraisers thing where other properties have built outside of the said line onto city property I think we've already covered that yes yeah so so my argument is is that that I have the littoral rights to the land he's saying I don't have those littoral rights but I have littoral rights to the land then that should give me the ability to apply and have the city give the denial and the reason for denial not coming before the special magistrate it should have been handled where I could have applied they could here we are in front of the special magistrate to determine who owns the land now I'm going to explain this in a different way if you came in with the survey that you submitted to planning and zoning and you submitted a permit for a pool on your neighbor's property we would not have processed that permit and denied it because you do not have the right to apply for that permit because you do not own your neighbor's property and your survey reflects that you only own your property so you cannot apply for a permit for property that you do not own and your survey does not show that you own that property it does the opposite it shows that you do not own that property because the high water mark is not within your property line so the analysis you're trying to make and I understand what you're trying to make the argument unfortunately your survey does not support that argument because the high water line is not within your property so then on the survey for the city attorney where it says it is the in your view the boundary line of lot one lot 14 where it says survey closure line and there's a dotted line that goes across yes yes and then the ordinary high water line is outside of that property yeah yes your honor if i may give you the legal authority on that it's going to be real simple for you to read it i mean my only assumption that i have at this point is that i'm a disabled veteran everybody else on that lake is not i do not pay any taxes and i'm assuming that that's why the city is coming after me because i do not pay any taxes i'm a 100% disabled veteran and i know those people that we're talking about okay personally i know that they did not permit the structures and i know that they have not been asked by the city to date to have those structures removed like the city has asked me so i'm just going to enter that in and that's speculation but so may i provide you with the legal authority yeah uh do you have these cases though available for the city attorney i mean you can give them to danny and danny can scan them and send them to me or he can give me the citations and i can pull them it would have been nice to get these in advance though but we could take a 15 minute and this special magistrate that would be good i mean i'm gonna have to read them as well and frankly i don't i think we have we've taken quite a lot of time with this case and everyone else who's waiting here i'm gonna i'm gonna do those cases and we'll come back your honor i'll be honest we're happy to continue this to next month as much as i don't want to do that i want to give you an opportunity to read the authority that he's saying and obviously i would like the opportunity as well your honor i would not like to have that contingent based upon the fact that i told you last time that i actually worked two weeks in Montana two weeks here when i have to request time off that is a 15,000 a week problem for me right so i do not want to continue that that is a very costly thing for me to have to do well the fact is i mean i have a lot of questions i think again what i'm going to do is let we're going to just table this case until later in this evening for the moment and we'll address the continuance request but i think i'm going to hear the other cases for people that are waiting here and we will come back to this one and i still have many questions so i would like to pass up the authority and also get it to mr ron so it can be given to the city attorney that would be good i'm not sure i may continue this i'm not sure at this point but right now i want to hear the other cases for the people that are patiently waiting sure that's fine thank you so much your honor we'll come back to that all right we're gonna move on to another case which case is this del 25-057 570 east normandy boulevard that is me again your honor okay my name is joseph marjimenez i am employed by the city of deltona as a co-compliance officer this is this will be case number del 25-057 the city of deltona versus carmen a hernandez the property address is 570 east normandy boulevard deltona florida 32738 the parcel id number is 813-0013 70230 this is a violation of city of deltona ordinance section 18-5 adopting the latest edition of the international property maintenance code section 304.2 which states that all exterior surfaces including but not limited to doors door and window frames cornices porches trim balconies decks and fences shall be kept in sound working condition and maintained in good repair exterior wood surfaces other than decay resistant wood shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment the corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace the damaged exterior surface of the home the statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers records in addition both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing all evidence in this case including the photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to special magistrate clerk i certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what i observed the day they were taken this case was opened on february 27th 2025 when i initially noticed a blue tarp on the roof of the house at this property as i got closer i noticed also damage to the exterior walls of this property with broken wood and soffit around the front face porch area of the home i spoke with the homeowner son lewis who informed me that the damage to the house happened during 2024 hurricanes a tree fell on the home and that fema is helping them fix the roof and exterior walls he informed me that they have already received a check from fema but it was not enough to fix the repairs of the roof and exterior walls completely so they requested a re-quote from fema i informed him of the tarp on the roof and i was willing to give the 60 days for them to work with their insurance company and fema to get it resolved i gave lewis my card along with a courtesy notice with the re-inspection date informing him to please keep in contact with me and let me know of any progress during the 60 days i re-inspected the property on may 1st 2025 and found no change the exterior walls were still damage to the home and i did not see any active permits applied for or on file for any future repairs and i received no contact from the homeowner or homeowner's son from our last conversation in february with no progress or change to the property i proceeded to post a notice of violation that same day i received a not so friendly voicemail from the homeowner's son louis sounding very upset informing me that he received the notice of violation and is getting help from the city to get home repaired because they cannot get a loan and they have no money to fix the damage to the house i spoke with our community and development department management team and asked if they have received anything as far as an application for help from this property they went as far back as may of 2024 and saw no records of anyone reaching out to them i gave them the property address along with homeowners information so that they can reach out to see if this property qualifies for help i then called lewis back with no response left a voicemail informing him that our community and development department will reach out to the homeowner i received notice from the community development manager that same day informing me that she was able to reach out to the homeowner's son lewis and his email to then send out the application process to them giving the homeowner his mother until next week to follow up with them the son can assist but ultimately it is the owner's responsibility to reach out and contact the department i gave two weeks to see if any progress has been made with the homeowner and the community and development department on may 14th 2025 i spoke with the specialist in that department who informed me that they sent out the application two weeks ago and the homeowner has not fully finished it therefore they cannot proceed in helping them the assessment form needed to be filled out after the application process an owner has not completed or moved forward with any actions to proceed with them i posted a notice of hearing june 6 2025 i've not been able to speak with the homeowner during this entire case in progress all communication thus far has been with the son lewis it has been approximately four months since this case initially started with no change or compliance from the property owner the city would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of 25 dollars per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance thank you um you were discussing that just want to make sure i got this right that there was what what was what were they intending to apply for the homeowner that they did not yes your honor so we have a program here with the city the community development department and they help residents with any issues hurricane related to any damages like roof exterior walls etc because um lewis um i spoke to him he informed me that he was getting help from the city i assumed it was for that department um i reached out to the director of that department and she informed me that he they have not so i then forth gave the information about the residents to the department and they reached out to lewis through email to send them an application the application process um there's an assessment process and there's an application process and then they also have to make sure that there's no property taxes owed on the property etc so there's a list of things that they have to make sure also no other code violations are available are allowed to be on the property at that time he had two other code violations on the property so that was one of the reasons why um you know it kind of went that way but the the department um sent out the email and i do have a copy of the email here it was sent out on may 29th um what was may 1st that's when it was given to him and then may 29th was when the department got back with me letting me know that um they spoke with lewis and they advised him that they need to complete the application application process has several sections it's eight pages long um and unfortunately um b through i was never done so when that happened um on june 6th was when he received an email um saying that the housing denied the application due to property taxes not being paid and overall application incompleteness so they need proof that the property taxes were paid and then um they would be able to reapply within 30 days um then i just received an email today um at 9 a.m from the department saying that they have proof that the property taxes of the amount of 781 dollars were paid on the 23rd of june so they no longer owe the property taxes and then one of the um one of the um associates that works in that department is working with the resident in order to get the application process finished and that was today um so i have an email here from the department saying that mr hernandez is complying with our request to complete the owner occupied repair program documentation he has overcome the first hurdle by paying all paying all back property taxes i opened his file so he can now upload the document necessary to complete the application per meeting on june 11th we have given him a month to complete this documentation although we have not officially approved their request for assistance we believe he is working towards getting all necessary documentation on time we would like to give him 30 days as we promised him on june 11th to complete this so with that your honor i was able to speak with um um that uh employee in that department and he explained to me the process and um at that time that's why i'm requesting the 90 days that way it gives them the 30 day buffer to get everything done plus the 60 days of to repair the roof or repair the exterior wall okay is the program a like a loan or a grant what what is it you know it's a grant it's a grant for elderly people okay all right thank you all right did you have anything else for me no your honor um sir can you state your name and address for the record lewis hernandez and what your name and address 570 east normandy boulevard thank you what would you like to tell me about the case nothing we just you know we spoke today and uh we're in the process okay um i think the only thing i have and i mean this might be a stupid question but a mom paid 30 years of mortgage what does she actually own because everything is a problem you know and and i mean i know you're doing your job we finally you know squashed the beast that i had with her um but it's like you know the grass is too you know it's a little bit too long or this that the easement the right away it's like what does she actually own i mean this is irrelevant right now but i'm in i'm complying you know i've been speaking to to uh uh mr gregory jones yes yes um he's been very helpful i've been in conversation with him for longer than this situation that's why i said we were in the process of getting assistance from the city so therefore obviously i guess it wasn't on paper but um i really don't have much else to say all right and so you believe 90 days should be sufficient that's i mean that i don't know how long it takes to get the roof done but you know so i spoke with yes your honor sorry i spoke with my manager about the situation because again the process can be made permits can be put in as long as far as it actually being in compliance like it actually being fully fixed we don't know that that's sort of one of those things where we kind of have to figure that i know hurricane season's here and um and that was one of our biggest my biggest concern and i i spoke to him um today about that you know i would hate for us to go through this hurricane season again with you know the house in that type of condition especially um well at least the tree is not there anymore so yeah and that's what happened a tree that was a great part yeah and that's what happened a tree fell and it fell on the on the roof um of the house you know hopefully nobody was hurt but i mean my major concern would be the health safety and welfare of course and um that's why i gave the 90 days um again i'm open to giving it more time if needed but i can't give you that answer as far as how long it would take all right um i think that it sounds to me like you are in the process of really of trying to work with the city to get it corrected um and i'm i think that i think i would suggest 120 days simply to give a little bit additional buffer because even if he applies within the 30 days then there's a process processing of that absolutely and then hiring who you need to hire um so i do want to try to give you time to do that without yeah my next door neighbor my tree split in half got her house she has insurance still not fixed you know so you know all of this stuff is in the air but i will definitely try to get you know yeah within the 30 days all the information that's needed okay well i mean so that's what i will do but ultimately it is your responsibility to to fix the property to comply with a code which means that you know the roof and now to be clear it is the the soft i'm i'm more yeah so it's hard because as you can see in the photo the roof looks to be intact i i don't really know 100 whether or not there's a leak or anything going on with the roof but i specifically did the ordinance that includes the um the soffit and the trim um because that's what i can visually see that is damaged yeah so we're talking about the that trim area and the soffits yes ma'am the trim the soffit the fascia and the eaves okay all right i'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code is charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock p.m on thursday october 23rd 2025 which is 120 days from now um and in the event respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of 25 dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesa to date respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order so please make sure you stay in contact with her and let her know your progress so she can keep track of that thank you thank you your honor is this what you're listening we're doing the other cases is there anybody are there other people here all right this is fire 006 2025 2310 north normandy boulevard you're welcome thank you good evening your honor good evening the record my name is samuel schaller employed by the city of deltona as the assistant fire marshal um before i start to introduce this case your honor i have to apologize there was an error that was made on the agenda for tonight um the violation description and the corrective action were uh for lack of better words they were flip-flopped from another case okay um so they do not reflect accurately on the agenda however the notices that were served um the notice of hearing and notice of violation for the initial case in massey case they did have the correct um violation and corrective action on them okay but this is a massey case correct i see my previous order yes ma'am okay all right go ahead all right thank you this will be case number fire 006 2025 the city of deltona versus normandy holdings llc the property address is 2310 north normandy boulevard deltona florida 32725 personal id is 813-06-0000-030 this is a massey case the statutory requirements for notification this hearing have been met the notice of hearing and notice of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers records in addition both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing all the evidence in this case including the photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals what i observed on the day they were taken this was initially a case for violation of city of deltona ordinance chapter 42 article 4 fire codes chapter 42-186 which adopts the most recent edition of the florida fire prevention code as adopted by the state fire marshal which contains the florida specific version of nfpa 1 fire code chapter 13.1.1 acquiring that the authority having jurisdiction should have the authority to require that construction documents for all fire protection systems be submitted for review and approval and a permit issued prior to the installation rehabilitation and modification further the authority having jurisdiction shall have the authority to require that full acceptance tests of the system be performed in the authority having jurisdiction's presence prior to finals system certification it was ruled on february 26 2025 that the property owner was given 90 days to comply owner did not come into compliance within those 90 days has been receiving a fine of 50 a day since may 28 2025 as of today the property has accrued a fine of 1450 over 29 days city is requesting that the fines continue at 50 per day until such property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is observed or correction is verified by a fire safety inspector all right and so the violation was that they did not obtain a permit correct for the fire alarm uh cellular communicator a permit was issued um back in i believe 2023 for the installation of the communicator um in april of 2023 uh fire inspector lee grovener conducted a site inspection and when she found additional work the electrical com feed run to the communicator was done without a permit okay um and that the communicator had issues with the um the cell service to report to the to the monitoring entity um informed the contractor that a re-inspection would be required but that this would not be granted prior to an electrical permit being issued um the contractor came in on june 16th 2025 so um approximately three weeks after the date of compliance um and the contractor did request an extension for the permit um the reason they put was the work hasn't progressed enough to pass inspection um that was denied by fire inspector lee grovener because the electrical permit hadn't been obtained yet that we had been waiting for and then believe just recently an electrical permit was applied for however the contractor did not complete the permit application nor are they a current registered contractor with volusia county all right so there was a there were basically modifications that were made and there were no there was no permit submitted for that the the permit was issued for the communicator right but not for the electrical that was run to supply to the communicator right so then the communicator permit ultimately ended up expiring with no passing final inspection okay and that has not been resubmitted the perfect or it has been but they have you i'm sorry you said it has been but they weren't even they weren't a current registered contract with lusia county's yeah contractor licensing board and it was not a complete permit application that was submitted okay um anything else mr challer okay uh can you state your name and address for the record um my name is sector lopez i work with dynafar for the contracted company okay um we did the electrical contractor uh that was actually hired did submit it yesterday in the morning we did receive the denied he received the uh denied of the permit due to the paperwork that he still needed it to implement and send in he did that yesterday in the evening we have follow up everything and as of three o'clock in the afternoon the electrical permit uh elc 25-0049 it's been placed on review okay so the city it's reviewing it as we speak okay but it hasn't been issued at this point it's on the city's behalf yeah we're waiting on them to give it was as soon as we do okay we'll proceed to ask for the extension of the fire and close out the permits as soon as possible okay but nevertheless that it hasn't been issued yet and you said that it was submitted yesterday correct the date the date for compliance was may 27th correct okay all right is there anything else you'd like to add okay um okay i'm going to find um 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 is set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the cone compliance inspector respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance it sounds like you're well on your way to getting compliance um unfortunately you know it's beyond the time that was given and that time was 90 days i believe so that and that's frankly quite a bit of time longer than we usually give um or that i usually give so uh i'm going to that that's my order um so please stay in contact and let him know first when when uh you uh receive the permit and come into compliance that wouldn't be a problem thank you all right thank you thank you is there anyone here for del 25-061 2515 howland boulevard no okay so then i guess we'll come back to the other case um which is del 25-042 a and b 1114 cambridge street i had tabled this i'm removing it from the table and we're going to resume the hearing um so we do need to get the city attorney back yes give me one second okay i guess you know i have a couple of questions i mean one is as a special magistrate i am not sure how i have the authority to determine whose property this is um you know so that does concern me um that seems to be a civil matter that is unresolved and i'm not sure how i am supposed to find violations without that issue resolved um i could i could you know we could discuss the violation um for failing to obtain a building permit but the remedies or the the things you know to come into compliance either by demolishing it or by obtaining the permit as i understand it they're not going to be able to do either of those things so i'm really struggling with a my authority on this matter and b how i can find a violation if there is no possible way for them to come into compliance um if i may they can come into compliance by applying for a permit to demolish you do not need to own property to demolish something you've built on city property i think the city would need a demolition from the city would have to as if your contention is the city is the owner i believe the city would at least have to um grant authorization for them to apply for a demolition permit correct they can they've been told they can apply for a demolition permit you're saying the city would the city would grant yes they've been they have been told yes apparently yesterday um the planning and zoning director met with them and informed them that they could not get a permit to build something on land and that was not theirs but they could apply for a demolition permit so they are welcome to apply for demolition permit to come into compliance okay um the problem that i tear this wall down we we already have a foundation company stating that this is causing my damage to my home so when i tear this wall down if i apply for that if i apply for that permit and i remove that wall it is going to be damaging my home so now this that's going to lie to the city for me to say hey look i'm removing something that we know is damaging the house well we didn't make you put that there we told you don't put that there right well your honor he's able to build the wall but it would have to be on his property line like you know on the outside the issue is that he built it on in the lake so if he put it the same wall but put it on his property and get a permit for it it shouldn't be a problem well i don't i mean isn't the reason that it's in the lake to begin with is that it's he at least the claim is that the lake is eroding his property we don't know that he did not apply he didn't get an engineer and he didn't have an engineering permit and he didn't go through saint john's water management so we have no idea he is your honor he's conflating issues saint john's saint john's has nothing to do with this lake they're they're they have no authority over this lake and he can't show any proof that they do this is a proof that they do this is a closed off lake that's surrounded by homes it's not it's not a waterway i've spoke at the saint john's water river district ma'am i've spoke with them on two separate occasions saint john's water river district forwarded me to the for the wildlife commission to make sure that there was going to be no violations from there they were supposed to get back in touch with me if there was going to be any issue with me building not in the lake because it's not in the lake it's at the edge of the lake and they said at that time they had said there is no i'm sorry let me get closer to you so i can see in here um i had spoke with the saint john's water river district they said that it's not in their jurisdiction because this is not a river lake or stream that touches the saint john's tributary of the saint john's river okay so they said they they are not they do not reside over this then they sent me over to the florida wildlife commission fwc fwc had spoke with me i spoke with them about 30 minutes on the phone and they had said hey we will have our agent get in contact with you if they deem that that what you have already proposed is going to be something that they need to investigate they have not investigated to date i've also contacted the epa the epa has contacted me today and it said that they do not deem that there's anything on the on the water line that is that way as well so i've contacted three different associations and i've done everything the city's asked well today i appreciate that but that again i mean it's really not relevant sure at this point the violation is for failure to obtain or at least that has been alleged is failure to obtain a building permit which is a city permit um so i'm not here to try and determine whether or not a saint john's river water management permit or any other permit from a state different state agency is required all i'm trying to determine is whether or not there is a violation um of failing to obtain a building permit um judge if i may i want to make one other point um they opened up a new case this is not even under the existing case so there again they're not complying with the statute there's there was an existing case that they never prosecuted they closed that case and opened up a new case alleging the same violations and how is that a violation of the statute the floor the statute requires if you cannot again the the first case was opened up based off of a complaint a citizen complaint the second case there's no impetus to opening up the case other than the fact that the city determined that hey now we're going to uh prosecute them for this at that point they were already aware through a complaint of what was going on but they failed to prosecute it they closed the case you cannot close a previous case and then open up a new case alleging the same violation i don't know why you wouldn't be able to do that well i i can provide you with uh if we continue this case i'll provide you with the with the law on that ag has been very clear on that that okay uh i mean there i don't see why i mean i think that's done all the time that you would close for repeat for repeat violations this is not a repeat violation this is a violation that they cited yes failed to prosecute closed it created a new case incited the same violations again again i don't see what the legal problem with that is um if you've closed a case and you have you didn't you declined to prosecute it initially but then determined later on that there was a case to be made i don't know why they couldn't do that um but i'm not i'm not aware of any authority that would suggest you couldn't open a second case i'll provide you with that your your honor i the initial case i never closed that the first case i've never that case has always been opened i did open a second case for the second violation there's two violations so the initial case was for the no permit for the erosion wall and then when we spoke with legal we decided to go ahead and open another case for the right-of-way um so i don't know if that's what he's talking about but um that that's what i did i had never closed the case and reopened it um it's always been that and i do have the um i i don't know if i provided you the uh complainant information yeah i i'd like to give that to you guys so that gives you the information of the original complainant name phone number and address so it was yeah uh i assume that's maybe shannon yes ma'am yes your honor has the complainant so i think that resolves that issue demonstrates that there was it was not uh initiate the case was not initiated based on an anonymous complaint um okay you are if you if you would like it i you don't need to consider it if you've already uh this is already common knowledge or provided by uh opposing counsel but there is a case stop the beach removerishment or florida department of environmental protection in which uh it holds that the land that's waterward of the mean high water line uh remains in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people and it remains owned by the property so i mean by the by the government and the the littoral property rights that um mr kelly keeps referring to again do not apply because his property line does not encompass the high water line judge i've supplied you with case law um that supports that he has littoral rights and what those littoral rights are well i mean i think what i understood your the discussion to be was that the lake has receded receded over time but that's not how accretion works so accretion the only way a property owner gets more land is when things are added to it so the ocean is a better example there are two types of beaches right on the ocean some beaches the water pushes sand onto the land and other beaches the water erodes when you have water that accretes and comes in from the from the water and adds sand or land that does become part of the littoral property rights of the property owner which would not apply here because his property is not within a high water line but let's assume it was this lake does not do that he's testified a number of times that the lake is eroding and going back it's not adding land and when it erodes you don't get the land when the lake water goes down you only get land when it's added naturally through surf or a storm but that's there has to be an addition of actual land of material the water line going down does not give you more land that that's not accretion that's the opposite and so i mean there's there's lots of cases on point i mean i obviously just said one but and just so you know the site for that is 560 us uh it's a 130 from the southern circuit and then there's another case florida's beach restoration base um which basically explains what i'm just saying do you save our beaches first floor department of environmental protection it's a case from the first dca from 2006 which basically says that when land is added yes you can have little property rights again that wouldn't apply here but when it's when just the water line goes down you don't get land that way that's not how littoral property rights work it's it's contrary but again it's irrelevant because mr kelly's property line does not encompass the high water line so none of that analysis applies again judge he's conflating what riparian rights are and littoral rights riparian rights are for beaches navigable waters this is not navigable waters this is a lake so this is we're on the littoral rights he said littoral rights operate the same way i mean riparian rights i think the riparian rights are the use to the water technically a riparian is land with water frontage specifically land abutting nine non-tidal or navigable river waters littoral refers to land abutting navigable ocean sea or lake waters however the terms riparian rights and littoral rights are used interchangeably the littoral rights to access use view are easements on the florida common law the rights are considered affirmative easements because they grant rights to enter use the land in possession of another upland owners such as mr kelly have common law littoral rights the right to access the water the right to reasonably use the water the right to accretion and reliction the right to the unobstructed view of the water these rights are subject to regulation our private property owners rights that cannot be taken away without just compensation upland owners also have a qualified right with the consent of the state to erect worms or piers or dots subject to lawful state regulations and dominant power of congress and that is bb inlet property llc that doesn't that doesn't respond to the which i think makes sense that accretion doesn't doesn't apply in this case because you're not there's you're not adding property there's not property being essentially you know land being added here you're saying that the water is receding right but again so accretions are additions of alluvion to waterfront land that's saying that's not water receding that's when land is added which is this lake does not add land yes but you know what i'm gonna i don't want to interrupt but special magic you were right this is about a permit and whether this was built in city right away if you want to reserve ruling on whether it was built in city right away and city on land we're fine with that but certainly it was built without a permit i don't think anyone anyone can test that your honor can i just can i can i just say here i brought an expert witness here today to say how that land is being added to the lake can he speak for that as to how that is happening because if we're talking about accretion and how that's happening by a natural source right then that natural source the rise in the fall of that lake is a sump pump it is pulling land from my land and adding it to the lake that is a natural occurrence from hurricanes from rain and from everything else so that is a natural occurrence as to how that land is being added i am not coming in and adding land nor is anybody on the city side coming in and adding land it is an act of god that is adding that land all right i i guess again you know i am i am i am here to determine whether or not there's a violation of failure to obtain a building permit i am not i've been trying to get a permit that's the problem yeah understood but no one how can it be that there's a failure to get a permit when i've turned in the documents and they're rejected they're they're not even looked at they don't look at that we would object to we're going to object to this witness i mean if they're gonna if they're gonna try to bring bring in an expert i mean certainly we would need to see qualifications and i would want to cross examine him so if he's gonna testify i i'm gonna reserve the opportunity to cross um sir you can look at uh human resources in this in the city because i used to work here okay i'm a licensed engineer okay well okay i don't see again i don't see why we need to get into this issue because again it's not disputed that a building permit has not been obtained now how you come into compliance and how much time you need in order to come into compliance is another question and if there is dispute about you know the city won't allow you to obtain a building permit because they're asserting that that is their property that's that is not something that as a special magistrate i believe i have the authority to determine i don't have the authority to determine whose land that is um but what you i can do is provide time for you all to work that out either through you know your discussions and negotiations your honor i have a question do you have the authority to ask them to i'm speaking i'm sorry excuse me um and i lost the train of thought that i was on um about talking with the city and myself yes so there is time to to you know determine to negotiate that or discuss that or to initiate you know whatever civil proceedings you need to to initiate to uh assert that you own that land and have the ability to obtain the permit i think that is something that i can do in terms of giving a you know a significant amount of time for you to to resolve that but again i don't believe as a special magistrate i am you know able to i i don't have the authority to determine whose land it is so uh again i don't know i don't think we need to get into you know expert witnesses about accretion and how it's happening and things like that because that's not within my authority to determine again whose land that is um i think that there and that i think that is disputed at this point um so with that said judge may i before you uh make your ruling yeah um you are you able to define what compliance is and and uh because again the compliance the nature of the compliance that has been listed in the violation is to attempt to get a permit yeah i would clarify that i think that but what i so the the compliance i think that again there's there's two options for you one is to obtain a demolition permit which the city has stated it they will allow and remove the structure or for you to actually obtain a building permit and and complete it it i mean what's written here is that you would obtain a survey and attempt to permit the structure but that's not really compliance what compliance would be is actually obtaining the permit so i would i would modify what the corrective action would be it would be one of those two things and again i am happy to provide quite a bit of time for you all to again discuss the matter try to resolve it and if you can't resolve it again that's not in my purview to determine you know whose land it is um so my uh i think what i'm inclined to do is find a violation of violation a which is that there was no permit however give you know a significant period of time for compliance which would be one of those two things which would be either you demolish the structure or you actually obtain the permit um and you know again give you that time to work that out with the city um i am not going to find a violation uh b because i i mean i'm just going as i don't believe that that has been proved one way or another whether this land is the city's or not so um i'm not i don't think that has been proved and so i'm not going to find a violation of violation b um is there anything either party would like to add before i make that formal ruling i will give you one last opportunity thank you so much your honor um if he is going to demolish we would be happy to give him um you know an extended period of time 90 days 120 days if he intends to pursue another route we would request that he be given a very short timeline in which to bring an action because he's had over a year he has not brought an action um so i would i would ask that you know if he's going to bring an action he's got 20 days if not we will give him 120 days to demo judge again that's that's unreasonable uh the first uh the first violation that they cited back in april gave him 15 days to correct uh and now he's saying that he's been waiting the whole year the city did not come down with the position until april and there's plenty of evidence in the record that shows officer jimenez speaking with different building officials trying to get a resolution and it wasn't until uh the the director of public works came and made a decision that he should be persecuted for what's prosecuted for what's going on um so he has not had a chance to uh apply for a variance which is florida law i've asked for the application it has not been provided in order for him to to uh seek a judicial judicial remedy he has to go through the administrative process first and that is being denied which again he has not been allowed to apply it's a prior restraint so i'm asking for more time than just 20 days that's unreasonable what variance would you be seeking well if it's the city's position that they own the land he's seeking a variance for permitted use to continue to to leave his seawall where it is currently at he's not eligible for a variance because it's city land i'm i've stated this at the beginning of the hearing and i've asked you to provide an ordinance that states that he he could have brought a quiet title action 13 months ago he could have brought a quiet title action a week ago there's nothing that there's no administrative requirement no you said he he didn't exhaust administrative remedies so he couldn't bring an action he could have brought a quiet title action at any point again you just said that there's there are city ordinance that won't allow him to apply for a variance could you please provide that on the record no i said that you can't apply for a variance for land you do not own could you please provide an ordinance that you're referring to on the record you want me to tell you an ordinance that says you can't get a variance for land you don't own i mean i would say the implied value is you can only get a variance for property owners can get variances you have to be an owner well is it your i mean i i hear you in terms of i mean this is only relevant to me in terms of how long i want to give you for compliance and efforts that how long it might take you i don't understand how a variance would help you in in any of this situation a variance is is to allow for a you know a use of property that's not permitted by code correct um but usually that's a zoning issue and this is not a zoning issue well this is where they've been sending they've been sending him to zoning and telling he needs to speak with zoning the whole time well but i i mean i don't i again i don't i don't see how that's going to help you um i think that the you know the issue is who you know if whose land this is is i think up for debate but ultimately even if you even assume that it's the cities there is a process in the code right here for you to ask for the city commission to give consent to you for you to use that land that's not a variance that's asking the city commission for their consent to allow for it to remain so you're i'm sorry if i may yes the section of the code code of ordinances that i believe um you're looking for is section 110-113 variances i'm not going to read the whole part but the operative languages said variance application shall be heard only if it is presented by the person owning 51 percent or more of the specific area of land involved or upon an administrative application by the city commission so it's very clearly states that both variance applications have to be presented by someone who owns 51 or more of the specific area land involved yes but and my but my other point is that i don't believe that a variance is would be helpful and in any case in this situation agreed so he was asking what says he can't get a variance and i'm saying that the only the only my question was a little bit different okay i asked him to cite to me where he's stating that mr kelly cannot uh build a seawall on the city's property i'm not sure why you need any citation for that um if it's not on your property but again that's the question right whose property this is and i've said before i am not here to make a ruling on whose property this is so um with that is my question the city attorney the city attorney is making accusations that i haven't done anything for for a year and a half to try to come into compliance with this we can ask officer jimenez if i've been completely compliant with anything that she's asked for the last year and a half and i would like to ask that on record have i been completely compliant with you on anything that you've asked for me to do for the city um during our communications and everything um every time i've spoken to him it's direction from directors so it'd be you know building official public works director my manager they would direct me as far as the information to give to him and that's why the notice of violation was stated that way because um according to um i'm gonna object i think he's attempting to cross-examine the code officer and that's not proper why would that not be proper i'm not quite sure what he's trying to elicit well i mean we this is a quasi-judicial need in nature hearing and cross-examination is permitted so i'll i mean if he wants to ask a question i'll allow it um but i i mean i have a question which is when was the notice of violation for the building permit violation when was that issued um let me go through my your honor if i may while she's looking um opposing counsel has continued to ask me where in the ordinance it says he can't do what he has done if you would permit me i can direct him to that okay so if you look at section 58-31 it's it's use of cities right of way it's in our code of ordinances and a reads consent required pursuant to the police power of the city the city commission determines in the interest of health safety and welfare of the citizens that the use of any city right of way including appendages and the use of any public lands under the authority of the city commission except for their intended purpose without prior written consent of the city shall be prohibited yes and that's what i just was explaining that i don't i mean again this is just relevant in terms of timing for compliance i don't see that a variance is what really you're looking for it sounds to me like what you're again this is just assuming that that the land is owned by the city what you would not you don't need an ordinance you would need consent of the city commission under that section that the city attorney just read so um but anyway and that that is not a lengthy process right i mean that would be going to a city commission meeting and requesting it um but if if it was that simple then why has not my communications with emma santiago doc daughtry and the previous um commissioner and the mayor um not have why has that not been spoken to me in those in those off-record conversations that that's what i needed to do and i know you can't answer that ma'am yeah but but but what i'm saying is i've i've had these conversations i've had these deep conversations and it seems like i'm just being led down a path that i can't either a get it permitted or b it's just going to get demolished right from the city's standpoint my argument is is that i have the littoral rights that's my argument is i have littoral rights to do that um all the way up to build the structures on the wall per florida statutes right now now i'm also going to ask at this point is you're you're telling me like hey i'm going to give you time to to file to make this in compliant there's no way i can make this in compliant at that point right i can't i can't file something where they're not going to allow me to file to come into compliance so then the only thing that i'm being told by the city at this point is what my understanding is is the only way that i can file anything is if it's to demolish the structure which i am not going to file i'll put that on record right now i'm not going to file that because it is going to damage my home so then that is going to make my house reputable worthless which it almost might be worthless right now because a mortgage company will not um will not issue a mortgage on that thing with the helical structures so they're not so my house is essentially worthless at this point right so in value purposes because if i go to sell it it won't be resold unless it's a cash buyer so i have to save my home how i'm going to save my home is to leave the wall in place and if we have to let a higher court decide that we'll let a higher court decide that i think that's and what i'm not sure if you're understanding what i'm saying when i say if i find a violate i'm going to find a violation of the violation a which is the um the failure to obtain a building permit and your options are to either demolish it or to obtain a permit and if the city is not going to issue a permit and you assert that you have you own that property and have the right to apply for a permit that the the ownership of the property is something that you would have to determine in a civil court not here in front of me perfect all right yep so i want to provide you with enough time to do that so can i ask my counsel how long that would take so i can ask for that well i'm going to give you what i think is appropriate um okay judge will you accept the evidence that we have so that yeah so that i do want to that thank you because i i do want to um go over that because i have a bunch of documents here for the record okay so um i don't need to admit i have case law i don't need to admit that as evidence but that that was turned in um we had the the i'm admitting the case file and i'm admitting the powerpoint presentation as an addition i have for the record i have the deltona lakes unit 9 plat which is recorded in the plat book 25 page 178 and 179 and that was submitted by the city i have a boundary survey of lot 14 block 329 deltona lakes unit 9 and this is dated june 15 2015 this was submitted by the city as well i have a code case management sheet demonstrating the complainant that initiated this case and that would be another exhibit submitted by the city i have up here and then i have aerial photographs they're all dated february 15th no i'm sorry three of them are dated february 15th 2024 and then there's one of this is and these are all okay hold on i apologize start over on that i've got an aerial photograph of um this property 1114 cambridge street dated 215 2024. i have one from of 1929 south is that old mill old mill dated february 15 2024 i have one of 1104 cambridge street dated 215 2024 and i have 1919 south old mill dated december 25th 2024 and then i also have a aerial of the lake itself with the green dot in it which is dated mart i mean excuse me january 29 2021 is there anything else that i'm missing those are the things that i have up here i have not admitted anything else into evidence your honor if i made a green dot that's the the one from the property appraiser's website i believe so um this is the printout and i believe is this the one that the city printed out yes ma'am it's from property appraiser yeah that's correct all right danny what about the one that says the owner city of deltona that i emailed you that i had pulled up did you give her that i do not have that i do have can we i do have that you have that okay i made copies if anybody see thank you please give them a copy as well thank you so much mr and then this is another printout from the property appraiser's website showing the same aerial but it does um have the the property summary with the owner stated as city of deltona and that is another submission from the city now these these uh one two three four aerial photographs of the property and the neighboring that was from the respondent that's all i have from you all in terms of documents the button we want to enter into evidence photos of the seawall we want to enter into evidence the scope of work that was done we want to enter into evidence the uh permit the original permit um that was approved and we want to enter into evidence the uh engineering for the seawall what permit that was approved the original permit for the uh the helical piers that's was okay that's on his property that there's a pier no from what i saw it was it's on the back end of his property it's it's on his basically on the home there it's a permit for helical piles so that the structure does not i'm going to object again if this gentleman's going to testify i'm gonna i'm gonna reserve cross that's fine i don't i don't can be i mean how how is that relevant well to um let me ask the attorney how is that relevant um again they're saying because there's allegations here that my client is not attempting to come into compliance and that he has not applied for a permit so this permit is proof that is is proof that mr kelly has been attempting to uh one get the structure permitted and that he is attempting to come into compliance so this this is record on this is record on appeal that the mat your magistrate has received evidence of mr kelly's attempt to come into compliance but that's the first separate structure it's for it's all it's all related that's the seawall and the structure that this that is permanent is all related to the erosion of his home we object to this evidence this is irrelevant to this matter which is whether he had a permit to build a wall in the in the lake that he's admitted to building he's admitted to building it without a permit we're not saying he never has applied for any permits ever we're saying he had not applied or received a permit to build a seawall in the lake or at the boundary of the lake however you want to classify it this structure by his home is irrelevant yeah i i think it's irrelevant too well the reason why it's not irrelevant again he has he received he he hired a company a private company to come out and assess the erosion on his property they made a determination that he needed to have a structure at the back of his home and a structure at the uh start of where the water is in order to stop the erosion from occurring okay a permit doesn't tell me that though and the permit is limited to a different structure your honor that's why i said we're submitting this scope of work as well as the permit so that there's an understanding of what mr kelly contracted for in the beginning he he testified that when he applied for the permit he was under the assumption that the seawall was included okay the city has made allegations multiple allegations that mr kelly hasn't done anything for a year to try to come into compliance all right can you mr ron can you get the papers from yeah we're gonna i mean we are gonna object to this evidence we are not saying no one ever said he didn't need to do something to make his improve his property that's not what this is about this is about whether he got a building permit and he did not so this is irrelevant if he has something that says he needs a seawall or he needs stabilization that has no bearing on whether or not he got a permit to build the seawall what is this letter on the top that from you're mr kelly correct this letter is undated and unsigned it says it's a request for clarification and equal enforcement of code compliance standards yes ma'am that's that's the part of the conversation that we've been having here as well with the um i don't know i think it's 1929 south old mill that has the exact same seawall that when you look on the property appraisers um site as well that he's extended past that at past past his supposedly boundary lines if you're looking at it like uh the council has stated from the city um and so that's why i'm asking um for that for that as well when did you submit this i didn't i'm submitting it today so i can date it today and sign it today for you if i would okay um this is not evidence so i'm not going to admit that's fine i can i can uh i can i can withdraw that and that's fine no worries i'm not i'm not admitting that as evidence all right there's multiple photos of the seawall specifications just if i may your honor will you have a moment can you have a moment i i just want to ask if mr kelly is making a code enforcement complaint against that address so that we can list him as the uh complainant uh no i'm not it's the duty of the city when mr tate and your director of public works was in the back of my property to do the due diligence of the citizens to see that there was a violation that was that was there i am not making a complaint on a record i am not making a complaint against that address but as a city official when you stand in the back of an address and you see another another code compliance issue it's your it's your civic duty to file that so i am not doing that it is our position that you have just made that complaint on the record but i i your objection to that is noted but this is a recorded meeting um okay i mean these are um photographs of the seawall and the or retaining wall um and some specifications i assume city you have no objection to that you have no objection to that so i'm admitting that that's that's 10 pages double-sided i hope you're taking notes of this all right thank you um all right the there is a letter here again from mr kelly it's undated it's unsigned it says its scope of work and construction description um i don't you know this is no object to that yeah this is not um yeah i'm not admitting that um i have initial the initial permit for the foundation work it says it's full object to that as well installing 12 helical peers for foundation repair um i mean it is our position that it not only is it not relevant but this is not about whether he got a permit for that this is about whether he got a permit for the seawall which he's admitted he did not yeah i agree i'm not admitting that your honor again it's it's relevant to the allegations that mr kelly did not attempt to get a permit it's wholly relevant to mr uh kelly's attempt to permit the uh the structure he was under the assumption again that the seawall was a part of the original permit i'll you know what i'll admit it but i i don't think that it demonstrates that i think it demonstrates the opposite because the description here is that the permit was for installing 12 helical peers for foundation repair but i'll admit it thank you um i have a notice of commencement is this for the foundation work it appears that way because the contractor is alpha foundation specialist llc but you know this is just a recorded document so i'll admit it i mean it's i could take no judicial notice of a recorded document thank you judge um and then i have alpha foundations groundwork um is this the company that did the work without the permit is that their admission this is there's no company that did work without a permit so i just want that on record well they didn't have a permit and they did the work uh the wall was constructed by myself not a company thank you this is it i believe that's for the helical piers yeah this is for the there's a drawing on the third page report page 204 it's sort of circled in red you can kind of see that's what they got the permit for it's on on the foundation on the yes ma'am on the your honor if i may if i may um mr kelly just testified that he built the wall himself uh i think i need to impeach him earlier in the hearing he specifically testified that there was a salesman from a company who advised him he needed to put the hierarchical spheres at the foundation and also built a seawall and that that company did both so i'm gonna i guess he can have to object to that that's a mischaracterization of the testimony well i don't i mean at this point i don't think it's i think we all uh know that this was built without a permit so i i don't think we need to get into that discussion all right these are all stamped by the city of deltona as being part of plan review and building services for the helical piers i'll admit it it was submitted to the city of deltona um you know this again is just for the helical piers there's nothing here indicating any permit for this the retaining wall or seawall thank you so um i'll admit this and that i believe is last document this is all from alpha foundations so i will admit that i'm sorry you want to all right um all right i'm going to go ahead and make my ruling i'm going to find um oh hold on i apologize too many papers how many oh you're still looking still looking all right so i'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that uh i'm sorry let me revise that i'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code with respect to violation a which is um city of deltona deltona ordinance um section 105.1 uh and judge yes i'm sorry that's not that's not the ordinance is it it is what is the city you're referring to the building code yeah it is section 18-3 which adopts the latest edition of the florida building code section 105.1 yes so i'm going to find the the respondent in violation of city code with respect to violation a as charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock pm and i'm going to give six months to come into compliance which would be i'm sorry 34 pages all right um i'm actually i'm going to give a little bit longer because that falls on christmas day so i'm going to do um january i'm going to do january 9th of 2026 which is slightly longer than six months all right in the event respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of um and i'm going to say it's uh well the city requested 25 dollars per day so that's what i'll do and the amount of 25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforestated date respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order um i'm going to specify in my order that your corrective action as we already discussed would be either to a demolish the structure or b to actually obtain the building permit not just to obtain surveys and attempt to obtain the permit and i believe that this amount of time will give you the time necessary to either as i said discuss with the city of deltona what your options are and resolve the dispute hopefully but if not to take your dispute to the appropriate court to determine who owns the property and who has the ability to apply for the permit all right um i'm going to find that i'm going to dismiss the violation b which was section 58-31 because um it is the city's burden to prove that there was use of public lands under the authority or under the authority of the city commission without prior written consent and i just don't believe that the city has carried the burden of proof there to demonstrate today that this is you know the city's property and again i i think that that really is outside of my realm to determine that question so i'm going to dismiss that one and that is my ruling i as i said before i'm admitting the case file and the powerpoint that was given today as well as the exhibits that i previously listed and i find that the notices were properly given here um thank you i think we've concluded that hearing thank you thank you thank you your honor yes okay do you need sir the case law that you provided okay no i'll i'll keep it i'll we'll put it in the file but as i said i didn't admit it as evidence all right the next case is del 25-061 2515 howland boulevard good evening good evening your honor my name is janice pelasic and i am employed by the city of deltona as a code compliance officer this will be case number del 25-061 the city of deltona versus rafael sells est the property address is 2515 howland boulevard the personal id number is 811-500-000100 this is a violation of city deltona ordinance section 18-5 adopting the latest edition of the international property maintenance code section 302.7 which states all accessory structures including detached garages fences and walls shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair corrective action for said violation is to repair or remove the structure the statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records in addition both notices were posted onto the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing all of the evidence in this case including photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk i certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what i observed on the day that they were taken this case was opened on march 20th 2025 for a fence in disrepair i noticed that there was a metal fence in disrepair along the front of the of this property property appeared to be vacant and i was unable to access the main dwelling due to overgrowth at the driveway and the property being gated i posted a notice of violation on a stake in front of the main gate leading into the property upon re-inspection on june 6 2025 the fence was still in disrepair still unable to access the main dwelling i posted a notice of hearing on a post in front of the main gate leading into the property i have not had any contact from the property owner as of today june 25th 2025 the property is still in violation the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of 25 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance thank you so you said this is a metal fence yeah it's a wrought iron fence okay and it's all and is it leaning is it falling it's hard to see in the pictures yeah yeah it's hard to now there's a lot of overgrowth um but there's sections that are missing there's uh pieces of metal that are exposed uh sharp edges and stuff like that okay uh thank you i'm going to find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock b.m on july 25th 2025 which is 30 days in the event respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of 25 dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the force stated date the respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order thank you thank you oh i'm sorry and i'm admitting the case file uh and powerpoint as exhibits and i find the notices properly given in this case thank you the next case is del 25-063 1713 concert drive hi my name is janice pelasic and i am employed by the city of deltona as a code compliance officer this will be case number del 25-063 the city of deltona versus hector enrique and narasara jutaris toro the property address is 1713 concert road the parcel id number is 813-045-330-050 this is a violation of city deltona ordinance section 66-19-3 which states that boats trailers and recreational vehicles shall not be parked or stored either within a public right of way or within the portion of the lot line across the full width of the lot between the front line lot front front lot line and front most part of the principal structure corrective action for said violation is to park the boat on the side of the house behind the front face or in the rear yard but not within the side street yard please move the vehicle to proper parking area or remove from the property all vehicles must have a current tag and be operable or they must be stored in an enclosed garage statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers records in addition both notices were posted at the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing all of the evidence in this case including photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk i certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what i observed on the day that they were taken this case was opened on april 23rd 2025 for a boat that was improperly parked on the side of the driveway with the tarp covering it on april 26 2025 after a given time to see if the boat had just been used or was going to be used i noticed that the boat was still improperly parked on the side of the driveway with the tarp covering it i spoke to the male resident through the ring video doorbell and explained to him the violation as well as the corrective action i also left a courtesy door hanger with the violation and corrective action on may 7 2025 the boat was still improperly parked on the side of the driveway i proceeded to post the notice of violation to the garage door upon re-inspection of this property on june 7 2025 i noted the boat was still improperly parked on the side of the driveway with the tarp covering it i then posted a notice of hearing to the garage door as of today june 25 2025 the property is still in violation the city would like to request seven days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of 100 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance um and so the compliance would be um just moving it behind the front building line correct yes your honor and what is the reasoning for a hundred dollars a day that's pretty significant we do have a fee schedule that was set by the manager for different violations and that's the for all vehicles we have a fine for a hundred dollars per day i determine whether or not what the fine should be um i and a hundred dollars a day seems pretty um significant uh so okay is there anything else no your honor all right so um i'm going to find responded in this case in violation of the city code is charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock pm i'm going to give additional time um primarily because i i don't think we will get the order completed in seven days um and you know so i'm going to give some additional time but not much i'm going to give until wonder forgive me i'm going to give until july 11th friday july 11th so um that would be so four o'clock pm on friday july 11th um any event respondent does not comply by this date i'm going to impose a fine in the amount of 50 per day um which will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesa stated date the respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order thank you thank you all right the next case is fire 018-2025 1200 deltona boulevard good evening for the record my name is jory bailey i am a i am employed by the city of deltona at the fire safety inspector this will be case number fire dash 0018-2025 the city of deltona versus deltona wellness lp the property address is 1200 deltona boulevard suite 23 through 26 deltona florida 327 25 partial id is 813-00-600-0020 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 specific version of nfpa 1 fire code section 13.1.8 which states all fire protection systems and devices shall be maintained in a reliable operation operating condition and shall be replaced or repaired where the defective or recalled and section 13.7.3.1.1.4 of nfpa 1 which states all apparatus requiring rewinding or resetting to maintain normal operations shall be restored to normal after each abnormal condition corrected action for said violation is to restore phone service to the fire alarm system to restore communication to central monitor station repair the smoke detector in the medical record room restore a fire alarm system to normal status the statutory requirements for notification of this hearing has been met by the notes of hearing and those of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser 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 as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk and i certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what i observed on the day they were taken on december night 2024 i conducted a fire inspection at the smoke at this address i observed a fire alarm in a troubled state due to the phone line not operating uh subsequently inspection conducted on january 16 2025 found the fire alarm still the fire alarm system still in trouble in addition i was i was provided with a fire alarm service report dated february 10th 2025 which states the fire alarm system dialer is not functioning and must be replaced and that the central monitor station station is not receiving signal additionally the report stated a system smoke detector was also missing subsequent re-inspections on february 25 2025 april 4th 2025 and may 15 2025 june 24 2025 found the violation still outstanding and no reports have been received stating the deficiency has been fixed the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of 50 dollars per per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance thank you okay so can you um going to violation b which is that the apparatus has to be reset essentially right to maintain normal did you describe that what needs so what is the state of it currently the state of it currently is still in trouble so even if you do reset it it's gonna it's gonna the trouble is gonna come back because whatever is in trouble it's not it's not operating right now it's the phone line and the phone line is um if there's an emergency and the alarm activates is to let to notify the fire department as opposed to go to a central station and then central station notify dispatch and to send out a um engine so then i'm not clear about violation b why are we finding a why are you asking me to find a violation b if it you're telling me that it doesn't it's it won't even work to reset is that right your honor i'm confused if i could chime in what inspector bailey's trying to say is essentially the fire alarm is stuck in a trouble condition um we we can't reset it no one can reset it because the phone line's broken okay so that would be violation b is the fact the fire alarm stuck in a trouble state and then violation a would actually be the fire alarm not communicating in the issue with the smoke detector okay so they're related really yeah essentially one in the same okay all right but so and when you are requesting fifty dollars a day that would be imposed um it would only be fifty dollars not fifty dollars each yeah correct yes yes fifty dollars fifty dollars for on for both for both yes now let me be clear is it fifty dollars for each violation that you're asking for let me see what that's called yes uh i find a fifty dollars per per each violation yes all right it's really for one condition though right uh i mean it again it's all related so well if they can fix the phone line and even though they fix the phone line they still have the smoke detector that still also needs to be replaced all right so there's both the smoke detector that's not functioning and the phone lines not communicating yes ma'am okay thank you anything else before i make the rolling no ma'am thank you all right i find respondent in this case in violation of the city code is charged and that respondent correct the violations before four o'clock pm on july 25th 2025 which is 30 days um in the event respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of fifty dollars per day for each violation or a hundred dollars total will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the before state of date the respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order for purposes of just a for the hearing um when there isn't a functioning phone line like this this is obviously a dangerous situation correct right now they're on fire watch they're on fire yeah so every day someone has to walk the property every hour okay um that's why they are still open someone has to walk and send that document to us directly and they have been uh sending documents okay thank you all right next case is fire 19-2025 1382 howland boulevard for the record my name is jory bailey i am employed by the city of deltona as the fire safety inspector this would be case number fire that's zero zero one nine that's twenty twenty five the city of deltona versus ege holdens llc the property address is 1382 howland boulevard deltona florida 32738 parcel id is 813038 00080 this is a violation of city of deltona ordinance chapter 42 article 4 fire code 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 section 13.1.9 which requires whatever impairments critical deficiencies or non-critical deficiencies are identified in water-based fire protection system maintain in accordance with nfpa 25 they shall be corrected in a time frame approved by the ahj correction of corrective action for said violation is to please contact your fire protection contractor immediately to have the repairs made based on the december 23 2024 fire hydrant inspection report statutory requirements for notifications of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and those of code violations uh were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser record in addition both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prices hearing all of the evidence in this case including the photographs have been marked as as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrates 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 27th 2025 i received a fire hydrant inspection report from north florida fire protection for this location dated december 23 2024 which stated a deficiency with the privately owned and maintained fire hydrant on on the property the report stated that the hydrant was unable to be flowed due to corrosion and moisture on the the bonnet and a build and a rebuild and possibly replacement was recommended by the contractor i generated a fire inspection report based on this report and sent it to the property owner on the same day a re-inspection report was sent out on march 10th 2025 on april 7th 2025 an email was received from the property owner inquiring which suite this was in regards to in which we informed them it was for the property itself pertaining to the fire hydrant subsequent re-inspection reports were sent out on april 9th 2025 and may 9th 2025 with no further contact from the owner or reports received document and that the fire hydrant has been repaired the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of 50 dollars per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance you said 30 days correct yes ma'am all right um i guess my only question is do you believe 30 days will be sufficient to you said that they would have to rebuild the fire hydrant correct really a reasonable time to do that they have the option to rebuild it or replace it and they um the fire of fire hydrant providers should have parts on site to replace the bunnets okay so you believe 30 days to be a reasonable time to do that yes ma'am okay thank you all right 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 four o'clock pm on july 25th 2025 which is 30 days in the event that respondent does not comply by the state a fine in the amount of fifty dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the four stated date respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector 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 thank you some call this out yes so it was a case for del 22-087 del 22-088 del 22-090 massey and del 14-178 repeat of 13-108 del 12-105 and repeat of del 11-021 okay my name is todd mead i'm employed by the city of deltona as a co-compliance officer this will be case number del 12-105 del 14-178 del 22-087 del 22-088 del 22-089 and del 22-090 the city of deltona versus carlos antonio enrique monserrat and lasandra enriquez the property address is 779 tulip street deltona florida 32725 the parcel id number is 813-003-430-190 this property is brought before special matters for a violation city of deltona ordinance section 2-154 which states 90 days after the recording of a miss municipal lien the city attorney shall be authorized to take legal action necessary to foreclose municipal liens on any real property corrective actions for for this is to move forward with the foreclosure process well it's not a corrective action or a violation you're just asking for correct to go forward with authority to move forward with the foreclosure yes is this a homestead property no it is not homestead okay uh and then it has been i think the the ordinance says um is it four months or three months after uh the uh 30 days after recording of the missile lien yes and then uh interest shall begin to occur at 18 percent per annum for any unpaid proportion thereof then it says the 90 days they can foreclose yes and it's been has it been 90 days after the um lien was filed yes are there liens for all of these case numbers that you read out yes so if i can help we just previously brought back as a reduction on the initial liens on the property of 125 000 the homeowner that bought uh mr montserrat purchased the home he did purchase the home and did receive proceeds to pay the liens to the city uh he then petitioned to have the reduction we had the hearing for the reduction the city did come forth and offered a reduction of half uh we decided the recommendation that was made to the city commission was for ten thousand dollars the city's cost uh that was presented to the commission the commission did reject that offer and was now went back to have the current homeowner responsible for these liens that he did receive the proceeds and we were shared that information basically almost the day after we had that uh reduction hearing the document that was the sales agent provided to the city showed that uh the homeowner received the proceeds uh 125 000 to pay the liens or to basically try to seek a reduction with the city to get the liens paid off on that property the property still had uh the liens were also tied to a property eden i'm trying to think of the address uh 1447 eden drive which was also the previous uh homeowner who sold the house to mr montserrat but mr montserrat did know at the time he was receiving proceeds to seek out and returning the house uh paying off the liens that were on the o to the city so you're saying so they in the in the closing on the property you're saying he did receive that amount to pay off the liens yes he he knew the liens were there when he bought the property because he and then he consulted with the city how do i either pay this lien or and we we directed him to the you can come forth yeah special matter and ask for deduction we tried to work it out or at least present him half uh he proceeded he didn't share that with us until again it was the sales agent on the property that shared with the city that he had received the proceeds to pay the full amount of the lien correct and he says he has not done so and then even after the commission meeting he did i think he did speak with mr rand about uh what else he could proceed at least get the public records on the commission's uh rejection i think there was in that in that but again he did not pay off the liens at this point that is correct all right um so i will issue an order authorizing the foreclosure to proceed um given that it is beyond the 90 days required right yes thank you thank you is that it all right anything else before we adjourn no all right we are adjourned thank you you