November 25th, 2025, to order. The first thing on the agenda is roll call, so I will have all the co-compliance officers introduce themselves. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor. Danny Rong, Code Compliance Manager. Sharon Shivers, Fire Marshal. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Todd Mead, Code Compliance Supervisor. Hector Sinceno, Customer Service Representative. There we go. Next on the agenda is my statement about how the hearing is going to proceed this evening. I am going to read this so I don't forget anything. We are here tonight because the city of Deltona has contended that there are violations of the Deltona City Code that exist. This is a public meeting, which means that no general public comment will be accepted, but each of the respondents and the code enforcement officers here tonight, and any witnesses each of you call, will be able to present evidence to me regarding each case, and the violations of the Deltona City Code that are being alleged. I am an attorney and appointed by the city commission to render decisions in these code enforcement cases to determine if a violation of the city code exists and what fine will be imposed, if any. If you are here for a Massey case, you might see that next to your case number on the agenda. That means that I will be determining solely whether you have come into compliance in a timely manner in accordance with the previous order the special magistrate issued in your case and will not be reopening the case to determine whether or not a violation existed in the first instance. Any decision I make this evening will be put into a written format in the form of an order. A copy of my written order will be provided to the city and then mailed to you as well. It is important to note that for any order I issue, you may appeal by filing a written notice of appeal with the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of my order pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 162.11. The procedure of the hearing today will be governed by Chapter 162 Florida Statutes. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Hearsay is admissible, but only to support other competent and substantial evidence. If you are a respondent, you will be able to testify, tell me what you think I need to know about your case, and 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, and then you will be allowed to respond. For each case, I intend to admit the case file and the PowerPoint presentation. You should have received a copy of the case file when you came in this evening. If you did not, please let me know when I call your case. I will take the cases in the order that you signed in, generally, first come, first served. And I do have, let's see, one case to announce that's been continued, which is Fire 046-2025-2031, Saxon Boulevard, Suite 110. If you're here for that case, again, that's Fire 046-2025, then 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 co-compliance officers. So if you're able, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do. Thank you. All right. I have no ex-party communications to disclose, and so we will go ahead and get started with the cases. First case is DEL 25-104-1211, Abigail Drive. My name is Steve Brockhoff. I'm employed with the City of Deltona as an enforcement officer. This will be case number DEL 25-104, City of Deltona, versus RDG Investments, LLC. Property address is 1211 Abigail Drive, in Deltona. Parcel ID number is 8130-0548-0140. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 66-19, subsection 3, improper parked trailer, RV, boat, which states that boats, trailers, recreational vehicles should not be parked or stored within either the public right-of-way or within the portion of the lot lying across the full width of the lot between the front lot line and the frontmost part of the principal structure. Statutory requirements for this notification of hearing have been met by a notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed at the property appraiser's records. Both notices were posted at City Hall and the property at least 10 days prior to this hearing. In addition, both notices were sent to the registered agent, which is Michael C. Berry, at his address at 916 Short Crest Avenue and posted on the door at that address. All evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the code board clerk that certify that any and all photographs be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day that they were taken or obtained via public records. In this case, again, October 6th, when I noticed trailers improperly parked on the vacant property. The property is well-groomed, but it was cleared without a permit, but it's still considered an undeveloped property. Since there had been a previous case, I posted a notice of violation with a compliance date of October 15th and I requested certified mailing. On October 22nd, I inspected and found the property still be in violation, and October 27th, I requested this special magistrate hearing. To date, the property is still in violation. I consulted the assistant building official and the director of zoning and ascertained this information. Parking of any vehicle is not allowed on any property without a approved site plan. This is Ordinance 66-8, Subsection 1. In order for this property to be in compliance, the owners would have to submit a site plan with engineers' drawings for the construction of a dwelling, have the plans approved by the permit department, construct the home, including a permitted driveway, have the property inspected and acquire a certificate of occupancy, and then the owners would be able to park up to three vehicles behind the front face of the principal dwelling. I also was informed that legal access to a vacant property, especially in residential areas, such as driveways or easements from other properties, would not be approved. So there's no legal access to go on to vacant properties. The city requests the property be found in noncompliance and given seven days to come into compliance or a fine of $75 per day be imposed. The reason for the $75 is we want to make sure that it doesn't, the fine's not low enough that it would just be considered storage price. And as a caution, I was hoping the owner or agent was going to be here because I believe the pickup truck might also be on their property, and if it remains, then the city will litigate against that in the future. You said $75 in how many days? Seven days. All they have to do is go over there with a truck and move the trailers. Okay. Since he's here, are you thinking that you're worried about the mailing of the order? The city would be okay with 14 days. Is the party present or no? No. Oh, they're not. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So is there, what are you asking me about the notices? Well, if you're concerned with it not being able to come to compliance because he might not get the notices mailed to them, then the city would be, you know, the city could stretch the seven days beyond that to make sure that the agent and the property LLC receives the order. Yeah. Okay. I wasn't there yet. I was still thinking about the section that's sited here. Obviously, these trailers are not parked within the right-of-way, and there is no portion of the lot where there is a principal structure. Exactly. And that is why the vehicles will never be able to come into compliance with the ordinance because there's no structure on the property. The only other way would be to remove the vehicles. Well, I mean, I feel like this section assumes that there is a principal structure. I mean, is this a residential neighborhood? Yeah. If you go to, this is zoned residential, and you'll see the blue indicating the property. And the idea is residential areas, there's just because you own a property doesn't mean you can do anything you want to it. Of course. Even if you flew these vehicles inside with a Chinook, they're not supposed to be parked there. And they are violating the ordinance because they're not parked properly. They have to be on a property that's got a site plan that's been approved with a structure on it, principal dwelling, because this is a residential area. It's not a commercial area. If you can't park it behind a dwelling, they're in violation. I am, do you happen to recall, because I believe we had one case before where maybe it was Mr. Scott that brought it, that had the dump trucks or something that were on the property. Do you recall that? Was this the section that you cited? Do you recall? Well, yeah. I find this to be a strange citation. Give me one moment. Is there a reason that you did not use Section 66-18? Our program is, it was easier to site the trailers being parked improperly, because at the first time, you'll see the first picture, there was like four trailers there. It's easy to generate in the field the posting because it's in the drop-down. The one that basically states that it doesn't have a site plan was not in the drop-down. Once again, these trailers, unless they're parked behind a house, they're not in compliance. Well, I agree that 100% that under the code, this would not be permitted. I'm not sure I agree that this is the correct section, because it's saying you shall not be parked within a public right-of-way and not parked within that portion of the lot lying across the full width of the lot between the front lot line and the front most part of the principal structure. So the prohibition is on parking in a certain area, and that area doesn't exist in this circumstance. Exactly why they cannot be there. There is no principal structure. This is not a developed property. There's no way legally that these vehicles are supposed to be there. They have to be parked behind a structure. If you do not have a dwelling on your property, you cannot use your property for storage of your vehicles. Yeah. Well, again, I guess I just disagree. I think that the section is saying you may not park in a certain area, and this area on this property doesn't exist, so there's no violation. In my opinion, under this section. Your Honor, we'd like to continue this case. Yeah. Well, actually, my recommendation then is we get the section that it doesn't have a site plan in the drop-down, so I'll post it that there's no site plan, and there is no parking allowed at all on any property that does not have a site plan. And once again, I talked to the permit department zoning. You can't get a vehicle in here legally. In order, you can't access the right-of-way without a right-of-way use permit. And I know that the, I guess it's the parents of the girlfriend lives next door, but in order to do that, they would have to have an easement that would allow them to drive from that property, and that would not be allowed either. There's no way that these vehicles should be on the property, period. I don't doubt that. Like I said, my concern is I think the section that was cited I don't think is the correct one. But, I mean, I'm definitely concerned looking at this. Obviously, this is a huge eyesore. On the city's. I agree. The city's viewpoint is, are they parked behind a dwelling? So they can't, the front, there is no principal structure, so there's no, they can't be there at all. But if you'd prefer that we bring this to the January meeting, then we'll post it with a different ordinance. I think that would be needed. As I already explained, I think the issue here is that it's a prohibition. And this is not saying where you can park. This is saying you may not park in a certain area on a lot. And that area does not exist here. Which is why they shouldn't be there. But if it pleases the special magistrate, we'll post it with a different ordinance and be back in January. All right. Well, we will go ahead and continue this then. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-105, 706 Leeward Drive. Okay. I'll read this. My name is Todd Meade. I'm employed as a City of Deltona Code Compliance Officer. This will be case number DEL 25105, the City of Deltona v. Alex J. Alcigovar and Lyndon N. Castillo. The property address is 706 Leeward Drive, Deltona, Florida. The parcel ID number is 813-019-070-210. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 304.1, which states the exterior of the structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound, and sanitary as do not oppose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The corrective action of said violation is to repair, replace, or maintain in good repair any exterior surfaces, in this case the roof, obtain permits if required. The statutory required for notification for this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with a property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the paragraphs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. I'm reading this case in for a former officer who worked the case when he started, and so I helped work in the last few months on the case. Okay. This case was opened in January 21st of 2025 by a code officer after observing the roof of the home containing a tarp-like covering. The officer set the next inspection to be 60 days out from this date. On March 30th of 2025, the officer conducted another inspection at the property. The white covering was still present on the roof. The officer attempted to make contact with the homeowner. No one was present, so a door hanger notification was provided. The next inspection occurred on April 14th. The officer noted the roof was still completely tarped and would proceed posting a notice of violation and a certified mailing be sent to the owner of record. The homeowner contacted the code officer on the next day. The homeowner was able to leave a voicemail with the officer about the case. The officer learned through the homeowner that they were in litigation with their insurance company on a claim. The homeowner asked for an extension. The homeowner contacted the code officer again in May 6th of 2025 and left a voicemail. Again, a request for a continuing extension on the case was mentioned. The code compliance department received a call on the 14th of May from a legal representative for the homeowner. An email and letter stating litigation was in the process for the home were noted on the case. The letter was received by fax and added to information on the case. This letter is contained in the exhibit packet as well. The code officer continued with inspections on the property June 1st and July 14th. The tarp was present each time it was observed. The case proceeded to the special magistrate hearing in the coming months. On September 21st of 2025, the homeowner was contacted again at the home and to note an update on the case. I, as the officer, provided the information with the homeowner for contacting the Housing and Community Development Department with the city to help and aid in the process of seeking out some financial help. Information on the programs were provided to the homeowner. The next inspection was set for November 3rd of 2025. Notice for hearing was posted on November 9th. I spoke with the homeowner again and helped with the steps to meet compliance on the tarp roof. The homeowner did mention that he did attempt to make contact with the Housing Department and have not received a call back from them. The city would like to request 90 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Thank you. So that white, I guess it's like a plastic covering? Yeah, I would call it like a vinyl tarp. Vinyl, yeah. And it covers the entire roof, correct? Yes. Okay. And the property owners are here? Yes. Okay. Hello. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Alex El Siver. Linda Castillo. Okay. And what would you like to tell me about the case? My insurance, no one to pay for the chain, the roof, and the window, too. That they're not going to pay? No. My lawyers sent to the papers to the city of Deltona. You can see. Yes, mister. There's nothing in the letter that indicates any kind of time frame in which they believe that, you know, the litigation will come to a close. Do you have any idea of when that might be? No, I don't have any idea. No, they don't say nothing to the times, nothing. Well, they say wait. Yeah. Well, I mean, unfortunately, you know, this case has been open since when? January of 2020, so almost 10 months. That's earlier this year, started initial. And so, you know, we, I understand that you're attempting to, you know, make the claim against the insurance company or litigate the denial. But ultimately, it's your responsibility to maintain the property in accordance with the code. So, I, you know, while I sympathize that it, you know, it takes some time, we've already had it almost a year. So, and the city has asked for 90 days. So, I believe that that is a sufficient amount of time. Is there anything else you'd like to tell me before I make the ruling? I'm sorry. No. I don't understand you. You didn't understand? No, this is, this. Danny, do you want to kind of help with what I just said? And can you repeat what you said? Basically, I said that the case has been open for almost a year now. And ultimately, it's their responsibility to maintain the property in accordance with the code. And I said, you know, I sympathize that there is litigation going on, but we can't, you know, allow it to continue. Ella entiende su situación, pero ella tiene que dar una decisión con este caso. Okay. All right. ¿No daría más tiempo o...? Ella va a dar más tiempo. Okay. She's asking, he's asking, are you giving more time? And I said, you will be giving more time. I will, I will give 90 days. Ella va a dar 90 días antes que la multa comienza. Okay. ¿Y eso nos van a dar un documento ahora o nos van a enviar un documento después? Eso lo vamos a mandar. He's asking, are we, are they going to get a document? Yes. After you sign the order, we will give you, we will, lo vamos a mandar por correo a copia de la orden que ella presenta a la hora de noche. Los 90 días. ¿O sea, los 90 días es para sacar ese plástico blanco? Todd, if they remove the tarp, they're in compliance, is that what it is? Yes, that, that, that would... Si, sacando lo que está cubrido. Lo que está un cover, claro. Yep. They ask if, to come in compliance, they would have to move the, the tarp, or, yes. Yes. Yo hablo siempre con los abogados, y ellos lo que me dicen es que los procesos de este tipo de procesos demora de un año, año y medio. Pero qué pasa, que cuando el plástico lo pusieron incluso antes, ahí dice enero, pero lo pusieron un poco antes, pero ellos dicen que el proceso legal en sí apenas lleva creo, seis o siete meses. Entonces, como que dan a entender como que podrían faltar, no sé, medio año más, un año más. Yeah, he, the information he's getting from attorney is saying the process can take seven months, and he's constantly calling the attorney to get the information. Yeah. Pero, como aquí están diciendo que ya casi un año, y nosotros debemos que hacer algo. Okay? Pero se, I'm going to tell them also that con ese documento, you can darle al abogado diciendo, hey, mira, la ciudad va a comenzar una multa y si no se hace nada. I did mention to them that with the order, he can present that to the attorney. Maybe they can expedite the request on their part. Okay? Thank you. All right. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make the ruling. I find respondents in this case in violation of city code as charged, and that respondents correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. On February 23rd, 2026, which is 90 days, in the event respondent does not comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the 4th state of date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, as well as there's a new letter, actually two new letters, from the Florida Insurance Law Group. One is dated May 13th, 2025, and the other is dated November 25th, 2025. May I keep these letters? Lo puede este y coge esa copia que lo puede este? Yes. Okay. I'm going to, these also are going to be added to the file as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Okay. Ella dio 90 días para fecha de febrero el 23 de 2026, a las cuatro en la tarde, que se arregle el mercado. Okay. Yeah. El problema con el mercado de la ciudad. Ella dio 90 días para que haya aceptado todos los documentos hasta los documentos que usted presentó para ella y los puso en el folder para el caso. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Eso es todo. ¿No podemos ir? Good. That's it. Thank you. Eso es todo. Gracias. Gracias. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is fire 028-2025, Massey case. Go ahead. Good evening. Good evening. For the record, my name is Sharon Shivers. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as the fire marshal. This will be case fire 28-0025. The city of Deltona versus Dafford Enterprises, LTD, and KA Crawford LLC. The property address is 1644 Providence Boulevard, Deltona 32765. And the parcel ID is 813-014-60010. This is a Massey case. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what was observed on the day they were taken. This was initially a case for a violation of Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the latest edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In specific, the Florida edition of NFPA 1, Chapter 1.7.12.10, which states no construction work shall proceed until the AHJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards and the applicable permits have been issued. And Chapter 14.4.1, which states means of egress shall be continuously maintained free of all obstructions and impediments to full instant use in the case of fire or other emergency. It was ruled on July 23, 2025, that the property owner was given 30 days to comply with violations A and D and 90 days to comply with violations B and E. The violator did come into compliance with violations A and D. However, the violator did not come into compliance with violation B, as they did not obtain a permit for the construction of the new interior walls, and violation E, as the newly constructed walls are still obstructing the egress door. The property has been receiving a fine of $100 per day since October 22, 2025, and as of today, the property has accrued a fine of $3,400 over 34 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $100 per day until such property owner has notified the city of compliance, and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Thank you. Is property owners present? All right. Yeah, he's the tenant. All right. Hi, my name is Kushal Patel. I'm the tenant for the 1644 Providence Boulevard. So the guy who was working for us, he passed away last week, but we did submit the permit for the wall and fire. I do have a permit number if you guys want it. There is a permit? Yes. Is that? As of this afternoon, I didn't see a permit number, so if you have that permit number, I'll jot it down. BLDC 25-0174. I'm going to let, are you able to look it up? Yeah. Can you repeat that permit number, BLDC? BLDC 25-0174. Do you know when that was submitted? Did he say? I don't know, because I just talked to the lady, the general conductor. I just told her if you can give me a permit number, she just sent it to me. So if it is submitted, it hasn't been reviewed, it would still need to be reviewed and issued and finals done before we can stop the case. We'll look into it and see if it's been issued or at least submitted. Is this one for 1878? No, this is 1644 Providence. 1644. It was submitted today, online. Perfect. Okay. So I am here tomorrow. Okay. So if it is in the system and ready to be sent to a reviewer, I'll go ahead and review it. I don't know if it will be approved, but I'll at least start the review. Okay. Yeah, no problem. Okay. Do I need to pay a fine or anything? Not yet. Okay. Because the guy who was working, he's there, so I heard it. Yeah, unfortunately, about a week ago we heard the news. That's why I have to move everything. The handyman that we believe constructed the walls, he was having a difficult time finding a contractor to accept the work, unfortunately passed away about a week ago. Okay. All right. So a permit has been submitted but not issued, and then is this a picture of the wall that is obstructing the egress? Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. So then at this point, I am just determining whether or not you had come into compliance within the time ordered, which was October 21st, correct? No. Only the 20th. Yes, October 21st for violations B and E. So since there hasn't been compliance, the order is going to say that there will be a fine imposed based on what I previously ordered. So as of right now, as Ms. Shivers said, this is at $3,400, and each day it is $100 more. So I encourage you to try to come into compliance as soon as possible. Yeah. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? So is it going to be a fine for $3,400 plus $100 a day? Yes. Yes. All right. All right. I will go ahead and make the ruling. I find responded in this case, failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed to set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code inspector. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. I've got a question. Is it only fine for the wall or less electrical, too? No. The electrical has come in. That violation was not presented because that's come into compliance with the permit being issued and the fire alarm we took care of. Okay. So this is just for the construction of those walls. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I can ask, can you do me a few? Because I know it's been a violation, I understand. But if the guy who was submitting, he passed away, he was in hospital. That's why I cannot have to move to the other person and look for everything. If it's been there, he would have submitted before. I mean, I understand that there were some circumstances here. However, I did, this order was from July. Yes, I understand. But he was working with it because with the electrical and everything, we were doing one-by-one step. But he was also having a heart issue. So that's why he already had one surgery, and then by the second surgery, he passed away. Yeah, I mean, I generally don't change the orders once I've already made them. But if you can do like a minimum fine or something, I mean, like 3,400 would be much more. I mean, I think that there was a lot of time given for this, so I'm not going to change the fine in this case. Because if it becomes, you're certainly welcome to request a lien reduction, but that would be the property owner. You're the tenant, correct? Yes. I mean, this is... She don't listen to us anymore. That's why I have to go with and everything. And I have a three-month-old baby, which is going rough with me, everything. It's back and forth with the hospitals and everything. And still, I got a leg surgery now. Well, like I said, I provided quite a bit of time to come into compliance for this, so I'm not going to change the fine at this point. And to the extent the owner, the property owner, would like to request a lien reduction, that avenue is available to them. She's not going to listen to me. It's okay. I will just pay the fine. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-076, Massey, 858, Leeward Drive. Okay. My name is Todd Meade. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 22076, the City of Deltona versus Jose J. Lopez and Lucia Hernandez de Lopez. The property address is 858, Leeward Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32738. The parcel ID number is 813-017-090110. Statutory requirements for notification for this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers record. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what observed on the day they were taken. It was ruled on July 23, 2025, that the property owner was given 60 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 60 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since September 22, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,625 over 65 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. Okay. You said $1,625? Yes. Okay. All right. And then, okay, is this, I'm sorry, is this the picture from today? This is the, there's a couple pictures. This fence is still in disrepair here on this side of the house. The boards, but missing parts panel on this side, given that the posts are still there, it's still considered in disrepair because he does not, have not replaced any panels or removed the post to come into compliance. Okay. Thank you. Anything else before I make the rolling? That's all. I find respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order, and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance, and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code compliance inspector. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Next case is DEL 25-100 A and B, a Massey case, 1838 Joyner Drive. Good evening. My name is Bashir Cherkzi. I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 25-100 A and B, City of Deltona v. Julia M. Est. Vento. Property address is 1838 Joyner Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID number is 8130-53-190070. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and the notice of code violation being sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. It was ruled on 10-22, 2025 that the property owner was given 14 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 14 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 a day since November 5, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,000 over a period of 20 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. All right. Thank you. Okay. So this is the picture of the pool. It's hard to tell whether it's been – is it – oh, is that today? No, that's not today. As you can see, you can see the puddle of water that's still on the tarp that's been placed on the pool. Oh, there's a tarp on it. Yes, they put a tarp, but in order to come into compliance, the pool has to be either cleaned or emptied. Yeah, okay. And then was – oh, and this is the picture of the – This is today's – Of the vines. Correct. Yeah, okay. All right. Anything before I make the ruling? No, that would be all. Okay. I find respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case, and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the co-compliance inspector. Respondents shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance, admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-089, 1556 East Normandy Boulevard. Good evening. My name is – excuse me. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. I want to make an amend to the agenda and the notice of hearing. The property owner name was missing the middle initial, but the notice of violation has it, and the notice was sent to the proper address with the property appraisers. Okay. Thank you. You're saying that was on the agenda? Yes, ma'am, in the notice of hearing. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. This will be case number DEL 25-089, City of Deltona v. Deborah S. McGee. The property address is 1556 East Normandy Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parts ID is 813-011-230-020. This is a violation of the City of Deltona's ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 303.1, which states that swimming pools shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is that the pool must be maintained either in either drain of water or water must be chemically treated to remove algae. Water should be clear and sanitized. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing. The notice of code violation was sent, certified, mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraisers record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. I certify all of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This case was opened as a complaint and started by another officer on December 31st of 2024 for a sanitary pool. On February 10th of 2025, the officer contacted the property owner, Ms. McGee, and explained the violation and corrective action. On September 2nd, 2025, I contacted both the complainant and respondent regarding this case. On September 9th, I posted notice of violation and notice was sent certified via mail. On November 5th, 2025, I posted notice and hearing. As of today, the property remains in violation for the sanitary pool. The city would like to request 14 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Okay. So, yes, I can tell the pool is sort of green in color. Yeah, there you go. I think what I would do, though, is I would say 21 days because just given the holiday, and it's going to be, plus we have to get the orders out. So, I think 21 days would be reasonable. Fair enough. All right. Anything else before I make that rule? No, ma'am. That's it. Okay. All right. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on 21 days, which is December 16th. In the event, respondent does not comply by this date. A fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 25-106, 685 Spreading Oak. Go ahead. Okay. My name is Todd Meade. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 25-106, the city of Deltona versus David A. Christina L. Steele. The property address is 685 Spreading Oak Ave, Deltona, Florida, 32738. The parcel ID number is 813-062-360-060. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, section 304.1, which states the exterior structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound, and sanitary as to not impose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Corrective action for said violation is to repair, replace, or maintain in good repair any exterior surfaces, in this case the roof, obtain permits if required. The statutory requirements for notification this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing, and notice of code violations, and certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 minutes prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true, accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This case was again opened by another officer formerly with the city working. This case was opened on January 21 of 2025. Officer observed the home with a tarp. Officer set up the next inspection 60 days out from this date. On May 30th, the officer conducted another inspection at the property. The blue covering was still present on the roof and the officer attempted to make contact with the homeowner. No one was present at the time a door hanger notification was provided. The homeowner made contact with the co-compliance department customer representative on April 9th of 2025. The homeowner stated she is getting her roof replaced and has an open claim. The new inspection was done on April 21st, 2025. The notice of violation was prepared and posted on the front door and the compliance date was set for May 21st of 2025. The officer conducted the inspection and found the tarp still to remain on the roof. The officer did allow for an extension of time due to the insurance claim. The next inspection occurred June 23rd of 2025 where the tarp was still noticed to be present on the roof. Case was extended out to another inspection date of July 23rd of 2025. At this time, the roof was still noticed to be in violation. Case was updated on October 19th of 2025 with a photo indicating the tarp was on the roof and the violation was still present. As the officer reviewing the case opened to make contact with the homeowner and left the business card for contact. I did receive a call from Mrs. Steele in October 21st of 2025 but it was just through a voicemail left to me. Made an inspection on November 3rd and then documented the tarp on the roof. Notice of hearing was posted on November 9th. An attempt to contact the homeowner again but there was no answer at the door and the homeowner has only left a voicemail with me with an attempt to meet when I've tried to call back I've got no connection with them. So at the status of what their claim was I do not know at this date the city would like to request 90 days for their property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed on such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Thank you. I think my only question is is the tarp the only issue or are there other issues with the roof like the soffits or anything? It's difficult to tell. Through more in-depth inspection there may be but at this time I can't comment on it. Okay. I just want to make sure so for purposes of compliance we're talking about the blue tarp issue on the roof. Just the tarp only. Okay. Thank you. All right. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 23rd which is 90 days and in the event respondent does not comply by this date a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Yes. All right. So the last one here is fire 036 2025 a Massey case 1878 Providence Boulevard. Go ahead. For the record my name is Sharon Shivers I'm employed by the city of Deltona as the fire marshal. This will be case number fire dash 036 dash 2025 the city of Deltona versus Fast Lane 1878 Investments Inc. the property address is 1878 Providence Boulevard Suite T Deltona 32725 and the parcel ID is 813-015-160-060 This is a Massey case. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case including the photographs have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This was initially a case for a violation of Chapter 42 Article 4 Fire Codes Chapter 42 dash 186 which adopts the latest edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In specific the Florida edition of NFPA 1 Fire Code Section 1.7.12.8 which states the H.J. shall be authorized to require permits for conditions listed in 1.7.12.2 1.7.12.5 and 1.7.12.6 unless otherwise permitted by 1.7.12.9 It was ruled on August 27, 2025 that the property owner was given 45 days to comply. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 45 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 per day since October 14, 2025. As of today the property has accrualed a fine of $2,200 over 44 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day until such property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. All right and so this was for not getting a permit for a change of occupancy I had from a retail to a mercantile? From a business to a mercantile to retail, yes. Oh, okay. Business. And no permit has still been submitted? So they have submitted for permit. They have not obtained it yet. They submitted for permit let me grab my notes. I think I had in the original order that they had submitted even in August. Yeah, I believe and I thought I had the notes here I believe it was August 20th around August they had submitted for a permit. We did one review. Those comments were sent. We have not gotten a resubmittal. I know Captain Schaller has been in contact with them as of two weeks ago where he was still trying to help them obtain that permit but we just haven't gotten to the finish line yet. All right. And you said it was a change from business the occupancy was business to mercantile? Correct. Okay. I guess I want to make sure because I'll have to note that in the order because I put from retail to mercantile and I was questioning that. Oh, yeah. That makes the original order. Okay. Yes. So I'll make a note of that in the Massey order. Okay. All right. Anything else before I make the ruling? No. Okay. That's it. I find respondent in this case failed to correct the violation by the time specified in the special magistrate's prior order in this case and the fine will be imposed as set forth in that order and will continue to run until the property is brought into compliance and an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the code inspector. Respondent shall notify the code inspector to verify compliance of admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is that the last one? Okay. Anything else for the good of the order before we adjourn? No? All right. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.