Special Magistrate on 2026-01-28 5:30 PM - Jan 28, 2026

The agenda is a roll call, so I will have all the code compliance officers introduce themselves, please. Sam Schaller, Deputy Fire Marshal. Danny Rong, Code Compliance Manager. Lisa Nadeau, Fire Inspector. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Todd Meade, Code Compliance Supervisor. Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next on the agenda is my statement about how the hearing is going to run tonight. And 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 an order. A copy of my written order will be provided to the city and then mailed to you as well. It is important to note that for any order I issue, you may appeal by sending or, excuse me, filing a 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. 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, and you should have received a copy of the case file when you came in this evening. If you did not receive a copy, please let me know when your case is called. I will take the cases generally in the order that you signed in, first come, first serve. I do have a couple of cases I need to announce that have been withdrawn. These are Fire 047-2025, 840 Deltona Boulevard, Suite A. Fire 052-2025, 840 Deltona Boulevard, Suite H. Fire 053-2025, 800 Fort Smith Boulevard. And DEL 26-005, 3182 Overdale Street. All of these cases were in compliance. And if you are here for any of those cases I just read, you do not need to stay. These cases have been withdrawn and will not be heard tonight. I will now swear in everyone who intends to testify today as a group, which includes the co-compliance officers. So if you are able, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do. Thank you. All right. We will proceed on. Oh, sorry. I have no ex-party communications to disclose. And so we will go ahead and start with the cases. All right. First is DEL 26-001, 2638 North Juliet Drive. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Janice Palacic, and I am employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26-001, the City of Deltona v. Amy and Philip Olberg. The property address is 2638 North Juliet Drive. The parcel ID number is 813-032-600-050. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 304.2, which states that all exterior surfaces, including but not limited to door, door, and window frames, cornices, porch, trim, balcony, decks, and fences, and 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. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace the damaged exterior surface, the siding, and obtain permits if necessary. 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 the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that they were taken. This case was opened as a proactive case on March 1, 2025, for siding missing on the garage side of the home. I spoke with the homeowner regarding the violation as well as how to come into compliance. The property owner was referred to the housing department to see if they would qualify for assistance and were given time to go through the review process. Per the housing department, they were not eligible for assistance. On September 17, 2025, the property was still in violation. Notice of violation was posted to the garage door, and a certified letter was sent certified mail to the property owner. On January 8, 2026, the property is still in violation. Notice of hearing was posted to the garage door as well as sent certified mail to the property owner. An affidavit of service was completed. As of today, January 28, 2026, the property is still in violation. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Thank you. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Thank you. What would you like to tell me about the case today? First of all, well, okay. Oh, wonderful. Do I need to start over? Did we hear anything I had to say? No, I heard it, but do we know if there was any? I didn't get very far into it. I can start all over. I said, you know, we acknowledge the violation. It's obvious that we do have a problem. We've been in good faith making effort to correct this problem. We just recently applied for a HELOC loan. We've been, since this problem has existed, trying to get it fixed in one way or another. Our most recent effort was a HELOC loan with our bank. I don't know if you need the details, but we were denied. I have the denial letter here. I don't know if we present evidence or if you need this, how that works. If you'd like me to have it in the file, I can. I would, yeah. Okay. Absolutely. Mr. Ron, could you? All right. Thank you. I did hear, I kind of zoned out a bit with Janice. Did you mention, I do have an email where we are on a waiting list to apply for the owner-occupied rehabilitation program. I don't know if that's the one you mentioned that we're, well, because. Because of its siding, they're not, it doesn't meet the requirements for falling under that owner-occupied repair. Okay, now that's not, is this the grant program that, do you want to look at it? It's from the Housing and Community Development Department. This is the email I received. Oh, it is, so you even apply for free screening. Sir, is this two copies of the same letter? It's a denial letter for the both. One's from my wife, Amy, and one is for me. Oh, I see. Thank you. You're welcome. Are we, okay. We also, I just recently turned 62 years old on Saturday. So, at that point, I can apply for a reverse mortgage for our home. Being 62 years old, I've been told we can only get 30% of the value out of our house. And with the fees, the closing costs, and the fact that they will hold 20 years of money for homeowners insurance payments and the property tax payments, that situation would cause us to be upside down. So, hence, at this point, we cannot qualify for a reverse mortgage. If I was 90 years old, it would be a bit of a different story because the amount of equity in our home and the amount that I could pull out of the house, we'd be okay. But we're at the bottom of the line for the, you know, the age limit or beginning. So, we have tried that at least one time. I have the names of the people I've called recently. There's been two different folks, actually. I don't know if I did. Those are just handwritten notes that I have. But Rob Wyatt with Guild Mortgage was the most recent person I spoke to. And Greg Polk with the mortgage firm in Altamont Springs. So, those are two gentlemen that we tried to apply for a reverse mortgage with. Okay. Mr. Wyatt was helpful. You know, he felt for us. He did mention a lot of places to try to get some help. But this was just, like, two days ago. So, I've been very limited in having time to check. But my cursory research is we're in a pickle. That was his words, actually. Because we just, as you already know, we've been turned down for even our own home equity. May I ask how the siding, I mean, was there damage to the home and then you had to remove it? Or what? We'll try to keep the story brief. I think some of the information is in our file that I kind of read that there's a bit of a rundown of what did happen to us. But, yeah, initially we had some leak around the one window that you cannot see that's in the middle section where the Tyvek is hanging down. There's a window behind that. It had some water damage from leakage. Our homeowner's insurance guy, I don't know what they call him, he came out and said, You need to get this fixed or we can't provide you homeowner's insurance any longer. So, accidentally, we hired an unlicensed contractor. Yeah, well, obviously, we didn't know at the time. We started seeing the red flags and things. And, you know, he ran off with our money and left that. I see. We did file a police report. I do have the charging affidavit. If you'd like to see that, I have that. And I have, I don't know what they call it, though I have the judgment and sentence. You know, he basically got, well, a couple, I haven't read this recently, but a couple years of probation and no restitution. Yeah, so he just, yeah, he ran off with the money that we had at that point in time to do these repairs. But I do have, I don't know if we need to put that into evidence as well, the charging affidavit and the judgment and sentence paperwork, I do have that. Mr. Ron, would you grab those also? I mean, this is how we initially got into the, they're two different, I haven't stapled on, I apologize. Here's the, oh, one more, sir. All right, thank you. Okay. Okay. Well, I mean, I sympathize. It sounds like you've been through quite a bit and you're doing, you're, you know, trying diligently to find a way to repair it. On the other hand, you know, the city code does need to be complied with. I understand. You know, my responsibility is, you know, we're not here to really try to penalize, but try to get compliance. And so, what I'm here to do is also set a time, a reasonable time for you to comply. So, my question for you would be, you know, you're, I know you're still researching, but what do you believe would be a reasonable time to comply? The city's asking for 30 days. That seems like it probably would be short in this time frame. But, you know, typically, you know, I, you know, I might be willing to go towards 60 or 90, but not much more than that. So, what would you, what's your belief on that? Before I answer that question, if I may, in regards to our efforts, we do have estimates. We actually have a company that we do want to hire when we can get the money. I do have, I do have that just to help. How much is the estimate? Bolster. Well, okay. This is, this is, but it is an estimate for some repairs that I want to keep in there. To answer that question, because we have been turned down for the money and the other ways that we might be able to try to get the money, which maybe we can talk about, I guess. But I think it was, what was it, $50,000 something. Yeah, it was around $50,000, I think. The issue is, is, you know, once they pull down some of this stuff, we're not 100% sure what's going on behind those walls. So, we're reserving enough money to be able to repair that. So, on the tops, we're talking around, I think, $50,000. So, but, if there's, you know, maybe we can try a credit union or something like that to try to maybe get a small personal loan. And what we want to do is just have the guy come out and repair that so that the city's happy and our house looks nice. Because, honestly, that estimate did include some soffits and things, because while he was out there, he noticed that somebody had painted over him so they don't work. And we thought, well, we're going to use our home equity money, and while he's here, just do this. So, that's why the estimate is rather large like that. Right. Yeah. If there's any way that you can reduce that scope and get it so that you come into compliance, I think that would be. That's the plan. Makes sense. Yeah. But right, you know, I'll be honest with you right now. I mean, he is one of the reverse mortgage guys, you know, mentioned Habitat for Humanity. I should ask if, I don't know if this is a place, but is there any other city programs or grants or loans that can help us in this situation? These programs are, you know, we refer everybody to the housing department, which you already, you know, reached out to. I did see the letter that you sent to you on November. Right. After this meeting tomorrow, I'll follow up on that also. Okay. Is there, I mean, you don't have a crystal ball, but is there any hope for that? I wish I knew more. Okay. The department, we rely on them to provide that information. Okay. We'll reach out to them tomorrow. Fair enough. Thank you. We'd appreciate that. So, and another thought I had, again, I haven't researched, maybe we can find a construction company or something that would finance us. Now, one of the reasons we were turned down, quite honestly, is a debt-to-income ratio. We have a lot of credit card debt, and I have some student loans that show up, and they just don't necessarily want to touch it. Now, I know you've heard that, and I don't want to belabor that. So, well, that's where we are. I mean, we'd appreciate as much time as we could get to work on this plan. I have another plan, but if this plan doesn't work out, and if we come back, maybe we can, we'll talk about the other plan, which would be quite a bit more time-consuming. I could just tell you, I suppose, we'd just both get another job and get in more income, and we could pay down our credit cards, and then at that point, maybe, you know, the bank would look at us more favorably. But that is not going to happen overnight. Sure. So, that's where we stand. Okay. Mr. Ron, would you be amenable to extending the date out to 90 days? The city has no problem with that. Okay. Like I said, you know, I do sympathize, but at the same time, you know, the city does need to get compliance with the code. I, you know, typically, a lot of times we do 30 days for compliance, so I am giving you a pretty, you know, good extension on what we normally allow. So, do you have anything else that you need to add before I make the ruling? No, I believe, I believe I've covered everything I need to cover at this point. All right. 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 April 28, 2026, which would be 90 days. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaided date. The respondent is further ordered to contact co-compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order, and I'm admitting the case file into evidence in the PowerPoint. I'm also going to admit into evidence the documents I received, so I'm going to list those for the clerk. I have the two statements of credit denial dated January 9, 2026, and then I have this e-mail regarding the owner-occupied rehabilitation waiting list from November 7, 2025, and the charging affidavit and judgment and sentence from Volusia County Court. Those will all be part of the record. May I keep these copies? Thank you. And I find the notices were properly given in this case. Thank you, and I hope that you're able to find a solution. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you. All right. The next case is DEL 26-011. This is 637 South Glancy Drive. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a Code Compliance Officer. This will be case number DEL 26-011, City of Deltona v. Teresa and Deshauna Brown. Property address is 637 South Glancy Drive, Deltona, Florida 32725. The parcel ID number is 81-300-341-1280. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct a large alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the garage conversion. Applications must be submitted to City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. The structure must meet all requirements of City ordinance and be approved on final inspection. Contact our office with the permit number when obtained. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and 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 on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This is a proactive case that was opened on May 19, 2025. While addressing another violation, another violations in the area, I noticed that the front fascia of the garage of this property had been converted. The garage door had been replaced with a wall and a new window was installed with no permit on file. I spoke with the property owners and advised them of the violation and the corrective actions. On June 25, 25, the property owners came into City Hall to inquire by getting a permit and were advised that an engineer drawings and a product approval would be needed in order to apply. On September 9, 25, a notice of violation was posted and the property owner was given until September 25, 25, to come into compliance. As of today, no permit application has been submitted and the property remains in violation. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Did you say 30 days? 30 days. Okay. 30 days. Okay. And $50 is what you recommended? Correct. All right. Can you state your name and address for the record? Teresa Brown, 637 South Glancy, drives Delta on the Florida 32725. Thank you. What would you like to tell me about the case? Well, my husband, no longer here, he passed, but my husband reached out to Jeff Fisher in regards to putting a wall up, as he said, with a window. And because he's a licensed construction worker, we figured that, well, my husband figured that he would take care of everything. And I guess he didn't, but I did reach, my son-in-law did reach out to the guy that did the clothing of the garage. And he said he will, they said we needed an engineer to draw up a draft. And he did reach out to someone to have that done. But they have not been done yet. Okay. Um, again, I'm concerned about 30 days. So if you're going to have to get an engineer, I don't see how that's really going to be possible. So, um, again, I wonder, um, city, what you would recommend on, you know, a longer timeline. This is due to, you know, uh, work that was done with no permits. I would only, I would only go like 60 days, ma'am. Okay. All right. Um, is there anything else you need to tell me before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Um, I am going to find that respondent in this case is in violation of the city code as charged. And that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock PM. Um, on, um, getting due 61 days, um, which is March 30th. Um, and in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaid date. Respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. So, um, I would encourage you to please stay in contact, um, with the code compliance officer. And hopefully, um, if you can provide the order to the engineer that you're contacting, you can stress the urgency of having them, you know, draw, draw up the, uh, well, prepare the drawings for you so that you can come into compliance. Um, so, yes. When we, when we get the drawing, um, do we need to bring it back down here to the, um, permit office? Oh, yes. Yes. That needs to be submitted with the permit for it to be a complete permit application. Okay. All right. I'm sure that if you have questions about that, the building department can assist you with it. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. The next case is DEL 25-103, a Massey case, 1420 Cortland Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. My name is Enrique Rios and I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case DEL 25-103, city of Deltona versus Life Fellowship Church of the Nazarene Incorporated. Property address is 1420 Cortland Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32738. Parcel ID is 813-038-000070. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mailed to the property owner at the listed address with the property appraiser's record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the days they were taken. It was ruled on October 25, 2025 that the property owner come into compliance within 30 days and per today's inspection, the fence remains present while there is no evidence of a fence permit being issued for the structure on the property. As of today, the total fines accrued is $1,725 over the course of 69 days. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. Thank you. Thank you. You said, can you repeat the amount that's accrued so far? Yes, it's $1,725. Okay. All right. And you said that no permit has been submitted? No permit application? Well, it looks like it was applied for on November 4, 2025. I did reach out to fire inspectors and spoke with a couple associates who said that their corrections weren't submitted. So the resubmission plans were not received. They have yet to be received. So that is still the case and nothing has been finaled. Okay. So there were comments essentially on the application. That's correct. Yes, ma'am. That were not addressed. Okay. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record, please? Absolutely. My name is Joel Newman. I am the senior pastor of Life Fellowship Church. Thank you, Your Honor, for allowing me to be here this evening. Allow me to apologize for my attire. I wasn't made aware. My buildings and facilities manager last minute got sick. So here I am filling in. So I'll do my best. Okay. What would you like to tell me about the case? Well, I think Mr. Enrique captured the spirit of it fairly well. There are some concerns and some questions that I have as I'm looking at the documentation. Um, we, uh, we did, uh, uh, engage the services of a fencing contractor in August paid. And it was our understanding that he was going to handle all of the, uh, logistics, whether it be, you know, the erecting of the fence, the paperwork, the permitting process, the whole nine yards, it was in our estimate. Um, obviously, as I'm sure you've heard various times is where you sit, the contractor didn't do as promised. Yeah. Um, and, uh, it was actually during a fire inspection. Uh, I wasn't aware that, uh, the fire inspector, uh, I don't want to say your name incorrectly. Lisa? Lisa. Um, uh, must have noticed it, uh, didn't mention it to us, but yet came and filed the complaint. Um, cause I found out then a couple of weeks later that there was an issue. Um, and I'm just now finding out that it was actually Lisa who filed the complaint. Um, uh, from reading the now. Um, so at any point, um, and our desire to become compliant, um, we did, uh, come and I personally walked in here, paid the applicable permitting fees and charges as requested, submitted plans and drawings as the fence was erected, um, and went home thinking everything was good. Um, I hadn't heard anything more. Um, and, um, and, and I'm actually looking here and I do have a question if I may ask while, uh, while I'm saying this. Yeah. Does this record I was handed, does this, um, does this entail all communication, uh, as pertaining to this code and code enforcement case? That would be a question for the city. Uh, what record are you? There's much missing. In the, in the, in the file. Yes. Like, like if I'm asking, does this, does this evidence, this exhibit, does this capture, uh, all communications that were had back and forth with representatives of the city of Deltona and our effort to get this case closed? Can you show me that? I mean, that's. You gave it to me. I didn't give. Well, you're the city. You should have this, right? Uh, sir, I deal with records all day long. I'm not sure which one you're talking about. From what I'm seeing here, these are the exhibits for this particular case. Yeah. That's not what I'm asking. But this is what I'm telling you. This is the, this is what I see. What I'm asking is, does that capture every time a communication was made back and forth between my, uh, my staff and the city of Deltona? No, it would only deal with the communication between my department and, and anything to pertain to that case. So it, because it says code case detailed report. And I just want to make sure because, and I'm asking this question because, uh, my buildings facilities manager, uh, showed me, cause I really got on his case about this, about getting this handled. And he showed me, um, uh, a list of his phone records and such where he had called both Mr. Enrique, where he wasn't available and other representatives to find out because here's what happened. We applied for the permit and we heard nothing. And, and, and it's only through word of mouth, nothing official that I received that said that there was something more that needed to be done. Never have I received a deficiency inspection report. And to hear that we're being charged $1,700 when we've done everything we could possibly do. But the city of Deltona has made no, uh, communication to us about what was wrong with our design of our fence. I have no idea. And what I was told through, through essentially a phone call that I finally reached out to Enrique. If you'll remember, you were at a conference. It was right after the turn of the year. And you said to me, you had no idea what was going on. Those were your words quoted. Um, and, and so I guess my concern is I don't feel that it's fair. We have fines and fees. You're telling me when we've done everything we could potentially do up to and including, I heard, I heard that we needed a gate, another pedestrian gate. I went and bought one and we added it and it's there. And I see that no one, and I, and that frustrates me. And here's why I might sound aggravated because I'm seeing that on one 22 at 928, 929 AM inspection status scheduled. If somebody had been out there on the one nine, then it says, and the one 22 that it says, you would have seen that we added that gate, the gate that no one told me we needed to add. Sorry. Somehow my mic turned off. Um, that may be, uh, important for eventually coming into compliance. But again, the issue at this point is, was the permit issued? And apparently it hasn't. So my, but you were told that it was. Yeah. I left here and I paid the money and I submitted the plans and the drawing. I said, here's the fence we erected. Sorry that my contractor didn't do the right thing. I asked, is there anything more that I need to do at this point? And they said, no, they'll come out and then they'll do an inspection and they'll final it. And then if there's an issue, they'll let you know in writing. That was what I was told. I never heard anything else in writing that there was an issue. Nowhere. Nowhere does it say that I was, that I was notified of a deficiency in the inspection. I was never given a notice of failed inspection. Do you, does the city have any records, uh, showing that there was a. Any ma'am from what I see on the case that a permanent is under review. It hasn't been approved. What does that mean under review? Yes. So I guess. But it's been under review since November 4th. I mean, you all told me that it was, that the permit was submitted November 4th. So, and that was before the date I gave for compliance. So I'm finding it really hard to impose a fine if there's no, you know what I mean? If, if the, the permit is under review for several months with no communication. Your Honor, if I can answer that, the, the gentleman's question to the communication. The communication that come from the building department that he's asking. Yeah. Our co-department would not have been able to answer any of his building questions. Well, I, yeah, no, I understand that. So to answer his question, the communication on the form he's asking would not show in that, what the document he's showing us. The, the building department still has it under review. And if they've made comments, Mr. Officer Enrique did let them know that there were comments that need to be asked. He talked to Maria. I think it was a line in his notes that he'd let them know that the plan was under review. And he did communicate back to the office something about the plans that need to be reviewed and the corrections need to be made. But that doesn't give me any evidence that those, those, um, review comments were communicated to the applicant. I mean, I, I'm, I mean, I'm struggling with this. So, um, you, you off the mic again. I don't know how it keeps turning off. Um, what I would suggest at this point is, um, that there be no fine imposed, um, at this point. And basically, um, allow for, you know, one or two weeks for this to get straightened out. I mean, there, there seems to be no explanation as to how, you know, how the, the, uh, applicant, you know, submitted in November. And then, and he's saying he didn't receive any, any communication from the building department. Well, I mean, he stated himself that he left the building department. Did you have a permit with you? Yeah. They, yes, they gave me the paperwork of an application for permit. And just said that I would be followed up with and that there would see somebody comes out and inspects the fence and make sure it matches the submitted plans of drawing that I gave. And then that would close everything out and we would be good to go. Do you have, well, you wouldn't, you wouldn't get the, once you got that portion of the permit, they aren't going to finalize a permit prior to doing an inspection. I understand that's why I was pending inspection, but I did, I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't do an inspection. Um, I'm, I'm here being fined for what I, for my inability to perform. Right. And what I'm saying is, is that I, I did everything that I could potentially do as the representative of the property owner being the church. I can't come and get an inspector, put them in my car and take them to the church and say, inspect this. I guess what I'm, what I'm asking is, did they actually come out and complete an inspection? No. So you haven't received an inspection yet? That's why I asked. Is this a totality of the record? Because it doesn't show where they ever came out and inspected. Ma'am, I'm okay to continue this case till next month? I'm not. Yeah. Um, okay. So, like I said, I think that the solution here, um, is we will not impose the fine up to this point and give, you know, like two weeks to get. May, may I be heard that a judgment be ordered for negation of fines up to this point? I'm sorry. May I have it on record that a negation of fines from your order to be issued at this point to negate any and all fines? There will be a written order that will be. Thank you, your honor. Um, and you know, because again, I don't have any evidence presented that the city went out to do a final inspection or that there was, you know, what the comments were when they were issued, how they were communicated to, to, um, the applicant and they submitted a permit well before the time for compliance. You know, but the violation is no permit and the permit was never issued and that's, we're addressing that violation. Right. But he's saying that it's the city's, he's saying that he did all of the things he was required to do and never received any further communication from the city and they have not come out to inspect. So I'm not sure again, I, I don't feel that I can impose a fine for, for that. Um, so I, I, that's what I said. I, I'm going to, I'm going, I'm not going to impose the fine that has would have accrued up to this point. Thank you, your honor. And I'm going to give two weeks additional to come into compliance. And I hope that, um, the applicant and Mr. Ron, I, I hope you can maybe facilitate with the building department to get them to either come out and do the inspection or do what they need to do or, or communicate what the deficiencies are with the application so that it can be resolved. Understood. Okay. All right. So that's, that is what I'm going to do. And I will prepare a written order to that effect. So you will have two weeks from today. Um, so that I'm going to, I'm going to say that's February 11th. That's 14 days. Um, in order to come into compliance and actually receive the issued building permit. Okay. That's directed to all of us then to be in compliance. Yeah. Well, it, you're, you have to obtain the permit. I'm giving an additional two weeks for you all to, uh, resolve the issue. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you, your honor. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. All right. The next case is 2,900 Beckwith Street, DEL 26, excuse me, dash 002. Good evening. Good evening. Go ahead. I'm Dr. Lassick and I am employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26 dash 002. The city of Deltona versus Teresa V. Saint Val. The property address is 2900 Beckwith Street. The parcel ID number is 813-034-350-090. This is a violation of city 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 and porches, trim balcony decks and fences, and 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. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace the damaged exterior surface, the siding, and obtain permits if necessary. 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 on the address, to the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including 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 July 11, 2025, for citing missing on the top portion of the house on both sides. I spoke with the homeowner regarding the violation as well as how to come into compliance. That day I also spoke with Don Hoppe and he stated that the property owner was not eligible for assistance from the housing department. The resident was given time to come into compliance. On October 31, 2025, the property was still in violation. Notice of violation was posted to the garage door. A certified letter was sent to the property owner. On January 8, 2026, the property was still in violation. Notice of hearing was posted to the garage door as well as sent certified mail to the property owner. An affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, January 28, 2026, the property is still in violation. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Okay. Ma'am, can you state your name and address for the record? Thank you. What would you like to tell me about the case? Okay. They're starting this Sunday. Oh, they, oh, okay. I can see that. All right. Well, that's good news. I, so then the 30 days to come into compliance seems like it should be sufficient for you since you already have someone out there working. Okay. All right. Is there anything else you need to tell me before I make the ruling? Okay. That's good to hear. Thank you. All right. I'm going to, I'm going to find the violation, but give 30 days to come into compliance. So again, there should be no fine, assuming that you, you complete the work within 30 days. Okay. All right. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged and that respondent correct the violation before four o'clock PM on February 27th, which is 30 days. In the event that respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the fourth state of 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 I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is DEL 26-008, 128 Champlain Drive. Good evening. Oh, I'd like to start out by apologizing for my argument of demeanor last time. It was exterior friction and frustration. I will not bore you with the details. Nope. No apologies necessary. Go ahead. My name is Steve Brock. I'm employed with the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This would be case number DEL 26-008, city of Deltona versus Carla M Garcia Morales. Property address is 128 Champlain Drive, Deltona, Florida. The initial ID is 813-05107-0090. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code or to cause such work to be done shall first make application with the building official and obtain a required permit. The statutory requirements for this notification of this hearing have been met by notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address list of the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall and on the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. All evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the code board clerk to certify that any and all photographs be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day that they were taken. This case began September 22, 2025, in response to a complaint from an adjacent property that some concrete was actually on their property and was put in without a permit and protruding onto their new property. I checked in there a substantial section of concrete that was added to the property without a permit and I spoke to the owner explaining the violation. I allowed extra time for compliance as permits are complicated. On October 21, I hand-delivered the notice of violation to the owner's son. On October 29, the homeowner called for an extension. On December 30, 2025, I did a site visit and found the concrete was still there and no permit had been issued. On January 6, I requested the special magistrate hearing and on January 12, I posted the notice of hearing for this. As of this morning, the concrete still remains and there is no permit for the concrete that was installed. Okay. Was there any application or? There's nothing listed. They have a fence permit that was expired and they did come into compliance with that, but the concrete there and it actually goes all the way to the backyard is still there. I guess it's quite a good amount of concrete. Yes. The photos. On this photo, you can see how far back the concrete goes. I've got arrows. Yes. I'm looking at the aerial that's from, what, 2018? Yes. There's a lot more trees, but you can see the concrete's not there. Yes. It's not on the side. Right. Was the portion on the side of the house there previously? No. Actually, that picture, that's the house. Then you'll see the grass and then it goes up to the fence. Actually, now the concrete goes pretty close to the fence. I see it now. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Can you state your name and address for the record? Carla Garcia. Okay. Can you state your address? 128 Champlain Drive, Deltona, Florida. Okay. Thank you. What would you like to tell me about the case? She translated for me. She's my daughter. Liz Garcia, and then the address is 128 Champlain Drive. She did state that she did call on October 24th, 2025. No, she actually came here on October 24th, 2025. And they gave her a piece of paper to put it on the door for the moment to inspect the house and then measure the house because of the simple fact that they're saying that we built concrete onto someone else's property. And just to check if we have to remove the concrete or we can just leave it there and get a permit. But they never came. She never got a call back or nobody ever came. And the paper's still on the door. Do you believe the paper is the notice? Is the paper the, because you received a permit for the fence that needed to be inspected. Is that what it's for or is it for the concrete? No, it's the concrete. It's on the door. It's still on the door. It's like on a piece of like clear thing. And you were given that where? Here. But, I mean, from the permit department here? Yeah. Well, I checked the, I checked for a permit. The only permit that's listed is for the fence. That's in our database that, now, the database I was using only goes back about six years, six or seven years. But there's no permit. Okay. So she may be confused when they gave her the paper because she had to renew her fence permit because there was two cases, and one's completed. And they had to reinstate their fence permit because it had expired, and then get that inspected. And they did that. Yeah. That's completed. Did you submit an application? She is stating that they did give her a number to call to like inspect the house for the concrete, and she did call, but nobody ever came. Okay. Okay. Did you submit a permit application, a building permit application, for the concrete? She's saying that over there they told her that they have to inspect the house first before the permit because of the simple fact that it was, quote, unquote, built on someone else's property. Okay. I don't know if that's the usual procedure, but nevertheless, the violation is that you have to obtain a building permit. So you will have to go and apply for one. And, you know, normally the inspection would be after you apply. I'm not sure if there was a miscommunication, but I want to provide enough time for the permit to be applied for and issued. Did you say you were recommending? I was going to recommend 45 days and then find a $25. And the reason why for 45 days is it's a possibility that if they want to keep some of that concrete, that some of it is a little too close to the property line and some of it may have to be removed. That's going to be time-consuming. Yeah. Or if they decide that they're not going to have it, then the whole thing is going to have to be removed, and that's very time-consuming. Yeah. And then do you know if this will require engineer drawings for the concrete slab? There shouldn't be any engineer drawings. They should have already their schematics for the house because they had that for their fence permit. The problem is they're going to give the survey and then draw where they're there. And actually, the permit department can see the pictures in the case. Yeah. They have contact with that. And they're going to have to determine whether or not there's too much concrete. Yeah. Or what's to go on from there. It could be too much impervious surface on the property. Exactly. Yeah, there's only a percentage that you can concrete. Okay. All right. I think, is there anything else you'd like to tell me before I make the ruling? No, we're good. No? Okay. All right. I am going to find a violation of the city code as charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. I am going to do 61 days, which is March 30th, and give a little bit of additional time. In the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesafe date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. So you have until March 30th to obtain the permit for the concrete work, and that may require removal. I think what the code compliance officer is saying, that may, depending on how much you're allowed to have, that may require removal of some of it during that period of time. So that's why I gave a little bit of additional time. But please stay in contact with the code compliance officer and let him know your progress, okay? Okay. Thank you. Next case is DEL 26-010, 617 South Anchor Drive. Good evening. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as code compliance officer. I want to make amend to the agenda and the notice and hearing. There was a typo on their company name. It was P-R-O-P-C-C-P, and it's supposed to be P-R-O-P-C-O. P-R-O-P-C-O? Mm-hmm. Okay. That's what I see on here. That's the, on the notice and hearing, the agenda is spelled different. Oh, so in the notice of hearing it's incorrect? Yes. The notice of violation is correct, though. Okay. Let me take a look. Oh, I see. It's just, it was just a typo. Correct. Yeah. Okay. That the notices were sent to the property. Yeah. I see it. Okay. I think that gave adequate notice. Mm-hmm. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. This will be case number DEL 26-010, City of Deltona versus F-K-H-S-F-R-P-R-O-P-C-O-G-L-P in care of First Key Homes LLC. Property address is 617 South Anchor Drive, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel ID is 813-003-410-570. This will be a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Section 38-110, Subsection A, Subsection 1, which states that the City of Deltona prohibits the existence of any nuisance as defined herein for the following reasons. The property is dangerous, unhygienic, unhealthy, visually unpleasant. Depreciates or potentially can depreciate the value of neighboring property. It shall be the duty of the owner of property to eliminate on their lot, track a parcel of any land of any public nuisance known at common law or in equity jurisprudence or as provided by the statutes of the State of Florida or the City Code of Ordinances including but not limited to excessive growth of grass, weed, brush, hazard trees, and other overgrowth on the property. And that portions of the adjoining public right-of-way between the property and paved or graded street. Conditions which endanger human life or substantially and detrimentally affect the utility, livability, safety, or security of occupants, nearby occupants are passed by. Conditions which render air, food, or drink unwholesome or detrimental to the health of human beings, fire hazard, structurally sound, unsound fence or structures, abandoned buildings when they are unsecured or unsecurable, and when by reason of abandonment or neglect they contain hazards or other unsafe conditions, and any attractive nuisance which may prove detrimental to the health and safety of children and others whether in a building or on the premises of a building or upon an unapproved lot. Corrective action for said violation is to remove and properly dispose of the tree. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by a notice of hearing. Notice of code violation were 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. 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 pictures of what I observed the day they were taken. This case was started as a complaint on September 30 of 2025 for a hazardous tree on the property. The complainant stated the tree in question is visibly infested with termites and severely rotted. She states the tree has already caused property damage, the tree branches falling and destroying her shed. The complainant also states the tree continues to pose a serious safety risk and she reached out to the property owner and nothing has been done. On October 8, 2025, I conducted a site visit, met with the complainant and took photos of the tree. I didn't spoke with my supervisor regarding this case. I issued a notice of violation on October 29, 2025. Notice and hearings were posted on the property on January 11, 2026. The current tenant at the property advised they would inform the owner. As of today, the property remains in violation and there had been no response from the property owner regarding this case. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day for this violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notify the city of compliance. I also have the complainant here as well. Okay. If you had additional questions. Sure. So the tree in question or the complainant is the neighbor, correct? Yes. And one of the branches already fell on the neighbors. Correct. On the original photos go back to the beginning. Is there more of the tree that's left? Yes. Potentially. It looks like it's sort of a stand of trees. Yes. It's a big stump at the bottom and then branches out. Okay. So that is all one tree that we're looking at. Correct. Okay. And were you able to determine that there's infestation from looking at it or? There's one photo. One more. Yep. Right there. If you zoom in. Can you zoom in a little bit? You can tell that's the sign of termites. I'm not an inspector, but yeah. Okay. Would your, would you like your witness to come up and provide any testimony or? Yes. Is the property owner here? She said she actually saw termites. Okay. Is the property owner here? No. No. Okay. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Thank you. My name is Nicole Driscoll. I live at 614 North Goodridge Drive. Okay. Um, what would you like to tell me about the tree and what you've experienced? So the, those are the pictures that I took. And so I heard a loud crash. And when I went outside, I found the branches. And as I say branches, they were huge and they smashed down on the top of my shed. So it did break the roof in. Um, and when I was going to clean it up, I did try to contact the person who lived there. He's a renter. He is nice. He tried to offer to help, but he couldn't get me in touch with anybody who owns the house. And when I put in, um, a complaint online with the owners of the company, rental company, they wouldn't respond. So I did have to break the branches apart to get rid of them. And when I was doing it, I got termites all over me and I was bit by termites all over. So after disposing of all that and cleaning myself up, I also had to treat my own yard over and over to make sure I didn't get termite damage. Because as you see on the sides, I have a wooden fence. So now my fence is at risk. I did lose my shed. And when I got quotes, it was going to be up to $5,000 to replace it. And I don't, I don't have $5,000 to replace my shed. So I couldn't, um, it did destroy the entire roof and the door was not opening anymore. So water was getting in during storms. And so we did have damage inside the shed as well. Okay. I'm sorry about that experience. That sounds really terrible. Um, okay. And, uh, Mr. Scott, you recommended 30 days at correct. 30 days. And you said $25. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I think I would impose a higher fine than that. I was going to suggest 50, so. Yeah. Um, that is really a hazard for the neighbors. I agree. So I think I would impose a higher fine. Is there anything else you'd like to tell me before I make my ruling? It is still creaking and cracking. So I haven't had anything that large fall. I had to chainsaw it apart. Like I and my brother could not lift it at all because that's how like heavy it was. The branch. Yeah. So I've had smaller pieces that are falling in, but, and I, you can see when you came today, there was a large part that cracked over into my neighbor's yard. All of us have dogs and they're not very big dogs. So if it cracks and breaks on our dogs, like they're going to get injured. So it is definitely still causing us issues today. Yeah. You're concerned. Yeah. Yeah. Your safety and your animals safety. All right. Uh, thank you. Um, 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, uh, four o'clock PM. Um, I'm actually going to do 21 days. Um, which would be February 18th. Um, in the event respondent does not comply with the state, uh, a fine in the amount of $250 per day will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the four stated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. This is case DEL 26-004, 1411 Swiss Lane. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Josimar Jimenez. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26-004, the city of Deltona versus Brenda Lise Roman Rivera. The property address is 1144 Swiss Lane, Deltona, Florida 32738. The parcel ID is 813-038-050-070. This violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 18-3 adopting the latest addition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for altering the garage into a room, doing the electrical, the plumbing, adding electrical and plumbing, and to, at this point, she didn't have a window, so also adding a window. Applications need to be submitted to the city of Deltona, 2345 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida. The structure must meet all requirements of city ordinance and be approved on final inspection. The homeowner also was aware that if a permit cannot be obtained, then removing, putting it all back to its original form is also a form of corrective action. I just didn't add it in here, but she wasn't made aware. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and the notice of code violation were sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed, with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to 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 originally started on July 11, 2025, when a complainant named Sadie called code enforcement for assistance. She explained to me that she is a tenant renting out a room in a house at this location. She explained to me that the landlord is trying to evict her from the house. She currently has court proceedings with the landlord and that she has a stove from the room that does not work and is a possible hazard. She feels like it might cause a fire. She states that she has no fire alarm or extinguisher provided to her with no windows where she lives. She also says that there is still damage from Hurricane Milton at that location. I explained to her that I'm willing to inspect the property for possible violations and I schedule an appointment to meet up with her the next day. I arrived at the location the next day and met up with the tenant through the side entrance of the home where she was renting the room. I observed that the living quarters was the garage of the home and it was converted into a room equipped with several electrical outlets and also new plumbing was all was installed as there is an existing bathroom all installed without permits. I did not see any windows in this room and a wall was erected to divide the room to the other half of the garage. I proceeded to make contact through the main entrance of the front door of the property to meet with the homeowner who was not available. I left a courtesy notice in my business card. The next day I was able to speak with the homeowner Brenda Lease and spoke to her about the violation and corrective action. The homeowner stated that she was unaware that a permit needed to be made and that her father was the one that created the room for her and she will go to City Hall to get what is required to come into compliance. The homeowner went to City Hall to obtain the permit and it was advised that she needed to apply for a permit. She spoke with Zoning who had advised that a secondary kitchen is not allowed per the zoning code. I spoke with the homeowner again and discussed violations and the need of the permit. And to provide the next steps I went ahead and gave her 30 day extension so that she can turn in the drawings through permitting. She was informed that engineer drawings were needed along with a letter from the health department for the added plumbing since the property has a septic. She also needed to apply for that permit. After the 30 days she informed me that she was able to hire an engineer. The engineer requested that I give him six to eight weeks to do the drawing and also try to hire an electrician and a plumber. Re-inspection was after the eight weeks and no permit has been issued so I proceeded in posting a notice of violation on October 3rd, 2025. I spoke with the general contractor and he explained to me that he is unable to hire an electrician at this time that no electrician was willing to vouch for the work. Already made by another unlicensed person. And I informed the homeowner that she has two options to either apply for the permit and get it issued or remove the room completely and bring it back to its original form which was originally a garage. The owner will have to remove the plumbing, the bathroom, the kitchen and the electrical and all the walls created to bring the property back to how it was before needing the permit. The owner was made aware of her options. The notice of hearing was posted on January 7th, 2026. And as of today no permit has been issued by the owner. I do have to say that I did speak with the homeowner this morning and she is aware that a permit is probably not going to work for her. She probably will not be able to get this room permitted. So she's planning on getting it removed. And I do have photos of what it looks like today. She actually emailed me those photos because she wasn't able to come in today because she had a family emergency. But she emailed me the photo of what the room looks like now. And as you can see she's removing, she's getting it all removed, including the bathroom. It looks like she's demolishing it. The plumbing is still there. The electrical is still there. So the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day to be imposed until such time the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Thank you. In terms of, I mean, don't, wouldn't they need to obtain a permit for all the demolition as well? Yes. All right. I didn't know the extent of everything because at the end of the day all of it was done without a permit. So in my head, I was thinking if she is going, I didn't know if there was, there is a wall that was put up, but it's one of those walls that the garage door is still present. So it's just a thin wall that can be taken out. So I was thinking a lot of these things are going to be taken out if she's going to be removing the plumbing or, you know, removing the electrical and all that, that, that would also, yes. So, yes. Yeah. Require a permit. Yes. Okay. Is there anything else before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. All right. I find a respondent in this case in violation of the city code is charged and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock PM on February 27th. In the event, that's 30 days, in the event that respondent does not correct or comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaid date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Next case is DEL 26-006, 361 Fort Smith Boulevard. Hello again, Your Honor. My name is Enrique Rios and I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26-006, the city of Deltona versus James Passarella and Geraldine O'Brien. The property address is 361 Fort Smith Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32738. The parcel ID is 813-059-159, excuse me, 190-090. This property has been escalated magistrate on account of one violation. The violation is as follows. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 38113A, which states that it shall be the responsibility of every owner, agent, or tenant of improved property in the city to at all times maintain those rights of ways nearly abutting, most nearly abutting property, excuse me, their properties. These responsibilities shall include removing litter and debris and cutting the grass and weeds to maintain a neat and trimmed appearance. Corrective action for said violation is to restore the grass on the right of way and refrain from parking vehicles and or using the right of way to access the yard in order to allow growth, natural growth, maintaining a neat and trimmed appearance. 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 of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify that all that any and all photographs that are to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the days that they were taken. Your honor, as it pertains to said violation on October 31st, 2025, I arrived at the property in response to a report from Deltona Stormwater describing a drainage issue near the intersection of Fort Smith and Cortland Boulevard. The alleged cause of irregular drainage of water originated from the buildup of dirt at the end of this property on Fort Smith Boulevard. Upon further inspection, it became evident that the dirt piling up near the sidewalk was a result of the dirt washout from the right of way, which no longer contained healthy grass and was mainly comprised of simply dirt. At the time and over the course of future inspections, I observed that the property owner regularly accessed the right of way and parked several vehicles, work-type vehicles on the right of way to include trailers, flatbed trailers, dump trailers, and his pickup trucks. Additionally, tracks of dirt leading up to the side gate also indicated access to the rear yard from the right of way. Subsequent inspections performed on November 6th, November 8th, and November 13th, 2025 found the property still in violation and with aforementioned vehicles, tracks, and drainage issues consistent. A notice of violation was posted on the 13th of November, 2025, and a notice of hearing on January 14th, 2026. On January 22nd, this year, 2026, I made phone contact with property owner James, who informed me that a notice of hearing was posted, and I informed him that the notice of hearing was posted to the property again and communicated this was a revised or amended notice of hearing. The corrective actions were communicated, and he did respond that he understood the implications and had full intentions to comply, but he did state also that he had limitations to accessing quality sod considering the inclement weather conditions that the sod that he wanted to apply was not exactly available. He said he had the capability of applying it, but he wanted to do more than just the right of way, and so the quality of grass has kind of hindered his progress there. He did also call today and say he would not be able to be present. He was called for emergency work up north to aid with storms, and so he did say, hey, as soon as I get back, within a couple of days, I should be able to have this taken care of, even if it's not good sod. So that's the resolution as of now or the progress that's been made. So today's inspection reveals the property remains in violation. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day per violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. Okay. Did you say that all the dirt that's washing out, was that washing out onto a neighbor's property, or that – I didn't – I'm sorry, I missed – Excuse me, yes. Did he complain of the – So he did not complain that this was a report that was generated from stormwater, from the stormwater department, and it was hurting drainage in the area, so that water was blocking, you know, the proper flow. So the dirt was washing into the storm drains. Yep, the dirt was – Exactly, yep. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. That should be sufficient. 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 27th, which is 30 days. In the event, respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of – I'm going to say $50 per day – will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past the aforesaated date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. And I raise the fine to $50, given the washout into the storm drains. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Next case is DEL 26-007-1211, Abigail Drive. My name is Steve Brockhoff, employee with City of Deltona, as code compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26-007, City of Deltona v. RDG Investment LLC. Property address is 1211 Abigail Drive, and the parcel ID is 8130-0548-0140. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 66-8, subsection 26, no parking in undeveloped or vacant lot, which states no person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any of the following places except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a law enforcement officer or traffic control device, and 26 states no parking of any vehicles on undeveloped or vacant parcels. Statutory requirement of this notification of hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of violation were sent certified mail to the property owner listed in the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing and on the property. The notice was also posted on the front door of the registered agent. All evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the code board clerk and certify that all the photographs be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed the day they were taken. This case began December 9th, 2025, when due to ambiguity with the ordinance pertaining to trailers parking in a previous case, the property continued to be in, utilized as storage lot for vehicles used in commercial business. Posted the property for the violation and certified mail was sent to the property owner. On December 29th, 2025, it did a site inspection and found the property be in violation after the December 18th compliance date. Listed on the notice of violation. On January 6th, 2026, I prepared the paperwork for the special magistrate hearing. As of this morning, the property is still in violation. I have a question. As I'm looking at the city code, 66-8 only has 25 sections. That's correct. This is a recent ordinance that was added, and it has been codified. Now, it will not show up in, or it hasn't showed up yet in municode. I do have a copy of that section. This is just the section of the 66-8 because they revamped the entire parking ordinances, and it's quite extensive, but this is a section, and if you'd like, I'd like to provide it to you so you can see the changes. Yes, please. Thank you. Okay. And it's possible if one of our officers or the staff could get into their regular, they might be able to pull up the codified version just so you can see where the signatures have been codified by the city council. Yes. Is that possible to pull it up on the screen? If not, maybe, I mean, I trust that that's the case. If you could maybe just tomorrow send me, like, that it was actually passed and adopted and signed, that would be appreciated. Okay. All right. And then this was, can you remind me, this is vacant. This is vacant, correct? This is an undeveloped property that the individual purchased, cleared without a permit. It was determined that there wasn't enough environmental tree damage to litigate on that, and then he's using it to store trailers and vehicles from his business. And there's no, even, there's no, oh, so is this like the neighbor, that house there that owned both lots or something? Well, the house that you're seeing in the picture, that belongs to the owner of the property's girlfriend's parents. Okay. And then they, and, okay. And then this is a separate lot, though. The separate lot. And it's owned by his LLC. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. And you did request, I'm sorry, did you say that you were requesting how many days? Well, I'd request 14 days to, because it's not going to, I want to be able to have the mailing go through, but it's not going to take that long to remove the vehicles. But the city does request a fine of $100 a day. I know that's stiff, but it would preclude the possibility of him filling this lot with vehicles to offset the storage fee. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. All right. Thank you. All right. I find the respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, and that respondent correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on 14 days would be February 11th. In the event respondent does not comply to this date, a fine in the amount of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the forced day-to-date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. And I agreed with $100 because I can see that there are very large trailers and commercial vehicles being parked on the lot. So that's concerning. I think that is it. And if, yes, if you could send me the executed ordinance, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. And it will be regrettable. I won't be seeing you anymore. I will be retired before next. All right. Well, good luck in your retirement. I can tell everybody. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. As you should. All right. This is case DEL 26-009A and B, 1330 El Cam Boulevard. Good evening again. Good evening. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26-009A and DEL 26-009B. City of Deltona versus Jeffrey D. and Marcy A. Meyer. Property address is 1330 El Cam Boulevard. Parcel ID is 813-009-380-070. 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 stated that they'll tell the 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, the pool must be maintained either drained or of water or water must be chemically treated to remove algae. Water should be clear and sanitized. Violation B, 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 a structure shall be maintained in good repair and structurally sound and sanitary, so as not to pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. Corrective action for said violation is to repair, replace, maintain, and good repair any exterior surfaces, specifically the esophage fascia and the decaying wood. Obtain permit if required. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by notice of hearing. The notice of code violation was sent, certified, mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraises record. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at city hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photograph, 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 were started as a complaint by another officer on September 9, 2025 for different issues at the property. On September 15, 2025, that officer conducted a site visit, met with the complainant who allowed him on the property to view those violations. It was unsanitary pool, and the esophage fascia and disrepair was observed, and the property appeared vacant. Notice of violation was issued on January 6, 2026. I conducted a site visit, met with the complainant who allowed me on the property, and on January 11, notice of hearing was posted on the property. There has been no response from the property owner regarding these violations. As of today, the property remains in violation. The city would like to request 14 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $25 per day for violation A, 30 days for violation B, or a fine of $25 per day to be imposed until such a time that the property owner noticed by the city of compliance. Thank you. Can you go back to the pool picture just for a moment? Do you want today one? Okay. This is today? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I definitely see a lot of growth in there. And then just to clarify, so on the violation B, is the corrective action that you're seeking just the soffits, or is it more than that? I'm sorry? The soffit and fascia. On the roof line there? Yes. Yeah. So basically that trim part? Yes, ma'am. Along the roof? Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else before I make the ruling? No, ma'am. That's all right. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged. And that respondent correct the violation, or I'm going to do them separately. So correct the violation A before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 11th, which is 14 days, and violation B February 27th, which is 30 days. What was that date? Oh, I'm sorry. What was that date for violation B? February 27th. Thank you. Which was 30 days. I believe that's what you requested. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, okay. And in the event respondent does not comply by the state, a fine in the amount of $25 per day per violation, so $50 total, will be imposed for each day the violations continue past the aforesafe state of date. The respondent is further ordered to contact the code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order, omitting the case file and PowerPoint presentation as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. The next case is DEL 25-096 A and B, Massey Case, 2913 Lake Helen Osteen Road. Good evening. My name is Janice Palacic, and I am employed by the City of Deltona as code compliance officer. This will be Massey Case Number DEL 25-096A, City of Deltona v. Elias Acosta Gonzalez. Property address is 2913 Lake Helen Osteen Road. The parcel ID number is 813-058-030-070. Statutory requirements for notification of hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that they were taken. It was ruled on October 22, 2025, that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since November 22, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,700 over 68 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. Okay, I'm sorry. Are we talking about just which one? A or B? A. Just A? Just A. Okay, so they came into compliance on B? No, I was going to read them separately. Oh, okay. Today or another hearing? No, today I have for A and B. I just didn't combine them into one. Oh, okay. One script. I have them in two separate scripts. Oh, okay. Gotcha. All right. You want to go ahead with B? Okay. Go ahead. My name is Janis Palasic. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be Massey case number DEL 25-096B, as in Bravo, the city of Deltona v. Elias Acosta Gonzalez. The property address is 2913 Lake Helen Osteen Road. The parcel ID number is 813-058-030-070. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that they were taken. It was ruled on October 22, 2025, that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 per day. Since November 22, 2025. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,700 over 68 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. Okay. And this one, there's no permit application has been submitted? No, nothing has been submitted. Okay. And I do not, there are no numbers, like no address numbers. No property numbers anywhere on the building. All right. Thank you. No mailbox. All right. So I'm going to find respondent in this case failed to correct the violations A and B 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 compliance inspector to verify compliance. I'm admitting the case file in PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices were properly given for the Massey hearing. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is Fire 050-2025, 1200 Deltona Boulevard. Evening, Your Honor. Good evening. For the record, my name is Samuel Schaller, employed by the City of Deltona as the Assistant Fire Marshal. This will be case number Fire 050-2025, City of Deltona v. Deltona Wellness LP. Property address is 1200 Deltona Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32725. Parcel ID is 813-006-00-0020. This is a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186. It 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 13.1.8. It states all fire protection systems and devices shall be maintained in a reliable operating condition, shall be replaced or repaired, or defective or recalled. Corrective action for said violations is to contact the fire hydrant sprinkler contractor, conduct all necessary repairs to the fire hydrants, and restore them to operational condition. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the Notice of Hearing and Notice of Code violations were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted as a special magistrate clerk, certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On September 16, 2025, our office received the annual fire hydrant inspection maintenance report for this location from Century Fire Protection. The report stated that the fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of the property was unable to be tested as it was unable to be open and there was a fear of breaking the stem of the operating nut. If it was tried, too much force was put on it. It's also stated that this fire hydrant is missing its road reflector. The report also stated that the fire hydrant located on the northeast side of the corner of the property was too low and also missing its reflector. I performed a visit to this location to verify the hydrant on the southeast corner of the property was indeed out of service, and I found that it was. I was unable to open, crack, or maneuver anything about the fire hydrant. The operating nut was frozen, frozen shut. I then visited the northeast corner fire hydrant and measured. I found that the accumulation of dirt, grass, and other sediment over time had caused the center of the steamer cap of the fire hydrant to be approximately above 12 inches above finish grade, below the 18-inch minimum requirement, which would cause difficulty to use a wrench to open this hydrant. Cap, as you see, our wrenches are about 14, 15 inches long. It involves going on that nut right there and spinning it around, but I wouldn't be able to spin it without digging into the dirt. Okay. Fire inspection report was completed and sent to the occupant. There's also numerous emails that were sent back and forth between Mr. Mather, the property manager, and Century Fire Protection regarding what was needed to be fixed. Six more fire inspection reports between September's date and today were sent to the occupant with no progress on the violations. I did speak to Mr. Mather, the property manager for 1200 Delta Home Boulevard. He stated that they had authorized back in October for their contractor to conduct these repairs, but had essentially that was it. That was where the communication ended on his end with the contractor. Okay. Went out to the site today, verified that the fire hydrant, as you see today's date, it's still about 11 1⁄2, 12 inches above grade, and then the other fire hydrant located in the southeast property I was not able to open. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that you went out and verified what was going on in the report. Yes, Your Honor. And in closing, we'd like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder with the violations or a fine of $50 per day until such time the property owner is notified the city of compliance. All right. Thank you. I find respondent in this case in violation of the city code as charged, and respondent shall correct the violation before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 27th, which is 30 days. In the event respondent does not comply with the state, a fine in the amount of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past the aforesaated date. Respondent is further ordered to contact code compliance inspector to verify compliance with this order. However, I'm admitting the case file and PowerPoint as exhibits, and I find the notices properly given in this case. Thank you. This is case fire 054-2025, 1382 Holland Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. For the record, my name is Lisa Nadeau. I am employed by the city of Deltona as a fire safety inspector. This will be case number fire-054-2025, the city of Deltona v. EGE Holdings, LLC. The property address is 1382 Howland Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32738. Partial ID is 813-038-000080. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapters 42 through 86, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the state fire marshal for the following violations. Violation A that was listed, that has been brought into compliance. Okay. Violation B, Fire Prevention Code 8th Edition, NFPA 111.1.8, Covers. All panel board and switchboards, pull boxes, junction boxes, switches, receptacles, and conduit bodies shall be provided with covers compatible with the box or conduit body construction and suitable for the condition of use. And then violation C is all fire, or I'm sorry, Florida Fire Protection Code 8th Edition and FPA 1, 13.1.8. All fire protection systems and devices shall be maintained in a reliable operating condition and shall be replaced or repaired where defective or recalled. So corrective action for said violations for violation B is as follows. Please replace the damaged cover plate for the junction box. And it looks like an attempt was made, but it's still providing open. So it's not, they didn't repair it, they just kind of revolted it back to the box. So you have a... There's like kind of cracks back there. So there's like an opening at the top and then at the bottom you still have a gap. Okay. And then violation C is contact your fire protection contractor to repair the tamper switch that has been pulled away and has exposed wires. What is that that I'm looking at? I'm sorry. I don't... No, that's okay. Is it on? If I do it the right way. Okay. So this is what they call a fire backflow. It's for the fire sprinkler system. Okay. And if you can go into the next picture where it's closer, where the box was. So right there, there's a tamper flow and there's a box here that has the wires in it. So it's been disconnected, been pulled away. So you have exposed wires. Okay. I see it. Will it still function? Maybe. I guess you don't know. Yeah. Until they go out and look at it. Yeah. Okay. They haven't had any... We haven't gotten any notification of anything, troubles or supervisories, but... Okay. All right. Did you... I'm sorry if I missed it. Did you say the recommendation? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't finish. Sorry. Don't worry. Okay. Statutory requirements for the 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 by the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. On July 31st, 2025, I conducted a fire inspection at this address where I observed the above-mentioned violations. The property owner was notified of the violations and given a time frame to correct said violations. Subsequent re-inspections on October 2nd, 2025, October 28th, 2025, November 18th, 2025, December 2nd, 2025, December 10th, 2025, and January 17th of 2026 found no progress on the noted violations. Upon today's site visit, no progress was made on the violations. The City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remainder of the violations or a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. And that is $50 per violation or $25.50 per? Okay. Sorry. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Anything else before I make the ruling? Okay. I fine respondent in this case in violation of the city codes as charged. And that respondent correct the violation, both violations, B and C, before 4 o'clock p.m. on February 27th, which is 30 days. In the event, respondent does not comply by this date. A fine in the amount of $50 per day per violation, which would be $100 total, will be imposed for each day the violations continue 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. Oh, was that the last one? Okay. So, Renee, would it be possible to get, I think there were two orders, right, with 14-day compliance, I want to say. If there's any way you can get those to me as soon as possible, you know, before the rest of them, that would be appreciated. Okay. Anything else for the good of the order before we adjourn? No? Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned.