Magistrate agenda for Wednesday, April 22, 2026, and we're getting underway as scheduled at 530 p.m. My name is John Van Lanningham. I am the city's special magistrate for Code Compliance. I'll be conducting this evening's hearings. Before we get started calling the cases, we do have some preliminary matters to attend to. The first thing I'd like to do is take a roll of the call of the officers that are present this evening and who will be presenting cases. If you would please go ahead and state your names for the record. Danny Rahn, Code Compliance Manager. Mark Gibson. Easton Adeau, Fire Inspector. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Todd Mead, Code Compliance Supervisor. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Sam Schaller, Deputy Fire Marshal. That's all, sir. Right. Very good. Good evening to you all. And at this time, let me ask all of you who are able to do so to stand with me and say the Pledge of Allegiance, if you would all rise. 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. And thank you. You may be seated. Good. And at this time, I will state for the record with respect to communications regarding the cases. I've spoken to no one about the merits of any of the matters on the agenda tonight. So there are no ex parte communications to disclose. I don't have any other announcements to place on the record. Does the city have any announcements to make it this time? Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to withdraw case number DEL 24002. It's a Massey case, and the address is 1627 Saxon Boulevard. Is that the announcement? Also, we'd like to withdraw case number DEL 26017. That's going to be at 2430 Austin Avenue. We'd like to withdraw case number DEL 26018. That's 1065 Abaddon Drive. We have three cases for this one, and we'd like to withdraw. First case number is going to be DEL 26019A for 1995 Monfort Lane. And I'm sorry, it's continue. And we have also the same case number, but B and C. Nope, I'm sorry, B. We'd like to continue that one. And for the C, we'd like to withdraw that one. All right. And for case number DEL 260211243 Myra Court, we'd like to withdraw. And Fire 01920261235 Providence Boulevard, we'd like to withdraw that as well. All right. Very good. Any other announcements? No, sir. All right. Let me at this time then go ahead and square in all the officers and any witnesses who are also present and expect to testify in any of the cases set for hearing tonight. If you would all raise your right hands for me, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. You may be seated. And at this time, that concludes the opening items, and we can move into the old business. Okay. Your Honor, our first case is going to be DEL 26022, and that's going to be 29016 Myra Road. That's Officer Ruddy. That's right. Tell me again, which one are we calling first? DEL 26022, case number 26, I'm sorry, 29016 Myra Road. All right. Do we have anyone here for the respondent? Tom, check your mic. We do not. All right. Officer, then why don't you proceed? Good afternoon. I am Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona versus Jaysden Holdings, LLC. The parcel ID number is 813-053-000050. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code, Section 105.1, which states that any owner-authorized agent who attends 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 damage. 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 fence. This case began on January 9th per the request of department manager. Upon arrival, I observed a new fence had been installed, checked with the permitting department, and no permit had been issued. I left the door hanger attached to lock gate, describing the violation and corrective action. On February 6th, the property remained in violation, and a notice of violation was posted the same day in front of lock gate on the fence. On April 8th, I spoke with the property owner, and he stated he filled out the application for the permit, but still needed to complete the survey. As of today, the property remains in violation. The city requests 30 days, May 22nd, 2026, for the property to come into compliance, with a fine in amount of $50 per day past the state. Thank you. All right, very good. I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence, and I've looked here at the exhibit packet. You've got some photographs of the fence, the new fence that was installed without a permit. So I'll receive those exhibits and evidence, and based on the testimony in the exhibits, I'll make a finding of violation with respect to the charges set forth in the notice of violation. The city's requesting a 30-day period to bring the property into compliance, so we'll set a compliance date of May 22nd, 2026. And if the property's not in compliance, by that time, a daily fine of $50 per day would begin to run on May 23rd and run until the property has been brought into compliance. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, that would be all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay, Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26008, and that's 128 Champlain Drive, Officer Pulaski. Good evening, Your Honor. Evening. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Pulaski, and this is the City of Deltona v. Carla M. Garcia Morales. This is a Massey case. The parcel ID number is 813-051-070-090. It was ruled on January 28th, 2026, that the property owner was given 60 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 60 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since March 29th, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $625 over 25 days. The City requests that the fines continue at $25 per day or until the property has been brought into compliance and that the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. And is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? No, sir. All right. So I will receive these exhibits into evidence. Again, this is an old case. A filing violation has been made. And I will find that the property remains out of compliance based on the exhibits and the testimony. We will therefore order that the fines continue to accrue at $25 per day and continue to run until this property has been deemed fully compliant. And as of today's date, $625 in fines have accrued from the compliance date until this time. Is there anything else that the City is seeking on this one? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor. Our next case will be DEL 26011. That's 637 South Glancy Drive. And who do I have? We've got someone here for the respondents. Yes, I believe the respondents for 637 South Glancy. Yes. Jamal, Teresa Brown's son. Did you say you're Teresa Brown's son? Yes. You're Jamal Brown? Jamal Jones. Jones, sorry. All right. And you've got someone else with you there. Who is that? Jeff Fisher. I'm just a friend. Just two. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Jones, and you're here this evening on behalf of your mother? Yes, sir. All right. Well, let me hear from the City, and then we'll come back to you and see if you have any questions or anything you would like to present. Yes, I do. Let me hear from the City first. But, yeah, let's start with the officer, and then we'll come back to you. Your Honor. Yes. I'd like to ask that they be sworn in as well. They came late. Okay. Mr. Jones? Yes, sir. Would you raise your right hand for me, please? I don't know. Is your friend planning to testify as well? No. No? All right. Mr. Jones, if you'd raise your right hand for me, please, just square it more from the testimony. You'll give it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. All right. Very good. All right. Let me hear from the City. Okay. My name is Todd Mead. I'm co-compliance officer for the City of Deltona, reading this case in for Officer Beshear Turkses, who worked the case during the time. This will be Bassey case number DEL 26011, the City of Deltona v. Teresa and Deshauna Brown. The property address is 637 South Glancy Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-003-411-280. It was ruled on January 28th of 2026 that the property owner was given 60 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance with those 60 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 a day since March 30th of 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,150 over 23 days. The City is requesting that the fines continue at $50 per day. All right. Very good. And, Mr. Jones, did you have any questions for the officer? Yes. Well, I've been trying to get this taken care of, and yesterday I got it taken care of. They're working on the stuff now as we speak. I put a payment in of $750 to get it taken care of, and he said it'll be done by no later than next week. All right. So you've applied for the after-the-fact permit for the garage? Yes. You heard of it? Yes. All right. Well, it's kind of hard to find people, because I don't know too many people like that. So that's why it took us a little minute to get it done. Okay. So I had to search and search and search. All right. Have you actually obtained the permit? No. It'll be done by next week. Okay. But the payment has been put in, and I have the receipt right here. So if you want to look at it, I have the receipt. Is that the giving plans? I don't – right now we're looking at city records. There's no submittal for a permit? No, no, no, no, no. It's the payment that I paid for the permit to get done. Was that done just today? No, that was done yesterday. I did the payment yesterday. It's through EPI? It's probably an engineer or whoever's doing the drawings. Yes. Right. That's why I think you're getting drawings done, and you'll have a submittal to the city. Yes. The city doesn't have a record to submit yet, but that's okay. But if you're moving towards the getting – Yeah, it's getting done. I can have you send it. Email me if you want to send it. Okay. All right. So, Mr. Jones, here's what we need to do. I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence. This is a case in which the violation has previously been found, and fines have been accruing, as indicated, for 23 days at $50 per day. So, you've accrued a fine or the owners have accrued a fine of $1,150, and these fines continue to accrue and will continue to accrue until the property has been brought fully into compliance, which means you've got to obtain that permit and then have all the inspections done and have it finaled. So, you know, the structure has been approved and, you know, the permit can be closed. So, those things have yet to happen, and until they do, that fine that was previously imposed continues to run. So, I will find that the property remains noncompliant, and there's a dispute about that, and that $1,150 of fines have accrued and will continue to accrue at $50 per day until compliance has been achieved. Does the city need anything else on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Mr. Jones, do you have any questions? No, sir. All right. Thanks for coming in. Good luck to you, and do try to get that permit issued and close that as soon as possible to stop these fines from accruing, all right? Yes, sir. All right. Thanks for coming in. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, our next case is going to be DEL 26013. That's 1068 Eagles Nest Avenue. Officer Pulasik. Hello. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Code Compliance Officer Janice Pulasik. This is also a Massey case. This is the City of Deltona versus Melissa A. Frascotti and Alexander J. Lacona. Parcel ID number is 813-010-060-180. It was ruled on February 25, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $25 per day since March 27, 2026. As of today, the property is still not in compliance and has accrued a total fine of $1,200 over 48 days. The City requests that the fines continue at $25 per day or until the property has been brought into compliance, and that compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. All right. Very good. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? No, sir. So I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence. A fine violation has been made. Now, a fine, based on the evidence presented in this hearing, that that violation has not been corrected and that the property remains out of compliance. Therefore, the daily fine of $25 per day will continue to accrue until the property has been deemed fully compliant, and at this time, as of the hearing date, $1,200 in fines have already accrued for the past 48 days of noncompliance. Is there anything else that the City needs on this one? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26014. That's 1556 East Normandy Boulevard. All right. And good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm here for that one. All right. Who's that? Attorney Matthew Leiter on Teams. All right. Mr. Leiter, and you're representing YMA Investments? Correct. All right. Let me hear from the City, and then we'll come back to you, Mr. Leiter. You ready? Yes. Okay. I am Co-Compliance Officer Todd Mead, entering this case for Officer Jeff Scott, who worked the case during the investigation. This will be Massey Case, number DEL 26014, the City of Deltona v. YMA Investments, LLC. The property address is 1556 East Normandy Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-011-230-020. It was ruled on 2-25-2026 that the property owner was given 14 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 14 days, and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since 3-11-2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,075 over 43 days. The City is requesting that fines continue at $25 per day for each for the violation. All right. Very good. And Mr. Leiter, did you have any questions for the officer? Yes, Your Honor. So, my client is the property owner, and they have paid to remediate the pool. Unfortunately, there's an occupant living at the property that has not allowed our contractor to remediate the pool. The remediation has been paid in full, and I have correspondence from the pool company that they've attempted to access the property and haven't been granted access. So, with the dispute with the occupant that's in the property, my client is left with the inability to remediate and rehabilitate what needs to be done. At this point, I would request a stay of the continuing fine so that we can attempt to get our contractor out there, which has already been paid for, so that we can remediate the pool and clean this matter up. So, it's a benefit to the person that's living at that property as well. Is the occupant a tenant of your clients? So, the occupant was the former mortgagor, and that individual executed a deed to my client, and now my client is in additional litigation in circuit court with that individual for the failure to leave the property. So, we're attempting to remediate the property as best we can, but she's not allowing any access to the property and having that pool company come in and do what needs to be done. So, we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place here, and we want to comply with the city's requirements. My client has paid in full to have that done, and I have an email correspondence from the pool company stating that they've received full payment, but they're not being granted access to that property. So, at this point, I would request a stay on any additional fines so that we can work with the occupant and try to get the pool company there and let her know that, you know, we're not causing any further harm to the property. We just need this pool remediated. All right. Does the city have any questions for Mr. Leiter? No questions. And let me ask you this, officer. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the city's processes for adjusting or reducing fines after the fact, after the property's in compliance. There's a fine reduction process of some sort, I assume. Would that come to me, or is that a separate channel? That would come to the same process. The representative of the home would have to contact the city and file papers to hear a fine reduction, lien reduction on the property, and that is done through the same magistrate process. And this has to be done after the property has come into compliance? In compliance, right. I mean, it seems to me there, does the city have any position on the respondent's or Mr. Leiter's request, I guess, on behalf of the respondent, to stay the fine while the owner here is trying to get the access to the property? We're doing all we can, Judge. I don't know if the city has a position on that or not. I mean, go ahead. Sir, we would like to continue the fine. We can work with them on the reduction of the fine once the property's in compliance. Yeah, Mr. Leiter, I think that would be my preference as well. Rather than stay the fine, we'll address it after the compliance has been achieved, and that way we'll be able to look at what was done, and you'll have the records as to all of the efforts that were made by YMA Investment. And, again, we'll deal with that when the time comes. But if everything you're saying is true and I have no reason to doubt it, then I would be inclined to provide relief for that. We don't want to fine the owner when the owner is making all diligent and best efforts to get the property cleared up. And there's some, what seems to me, unreasonable obstruction if everything you're telling me is the case. It seems kind of unreasonable that the occupant won't let you end up cleaning up this pool, which obviously looks like it's in pretty bad shape based on the pictures. Would it help if I shared my screen and admitted into evidence if the board would receive it, the email correspondence from the pool company, and the paid receipt showing that my client has done everything that they can to try to get this property into compliance, but we're being stonewalled. I understand, you know, the position that you don't want to stay and you'll work on a reduction after the fact. I'm just, you know, like I said, we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place getting access here. So I'm trying to do the best job I can for my client and get this fine. I'm, I understand the position, but if this would assist and introduce these documents into evidence so that we could have this in the file. I mean, I'm happy to have you offered. I think it's really, that's really going to go to the, to the fine reduction, the lien reduction piece. And as I say, I don't have any reason to disbelieve what you're saying. And if you have all that documentation and that's going to be, you know, you know, fine reduction situation, we'll get that and say, well, look, they did everything they could do. We don't want to impose a fine when it's not the fault of the, of the property owner. But, but I think that's really the preferable course we keep the fine in place. But I, I understand that this is what we're going to probably need to look at after the fact. And hopefully you'll get in there soon. You've got litigation going on. You'll probably get the court to make the argument and let you in at some point, I assume. But hopefully, do you have any sense of how long it's going to take at this point? I don't judge. You know, we're, we're, we're, we're going to file a motion with the court to instruct the occupant to, to provide access for the sole purpose of cleaning up, you know, any violations that exist. So hopefully we can get an order on that. We'll go from there. All right, Mr. Lightwell. I appreciate that. So here's what I'll do. I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence. I know there's not a dispute that the, the violation previously found continues to exist with regard to this pool. Um, so we've got $1,075 in fines that have already accrued. They will continue to approve $25 per day and run until the property's in compliance. All that being said, I've got a note here and I, uh, indicated several times. I, I, I, I, I believe what Mr. Lightwell is saying about the circumstances and I, I do think, uh, well, it's an issue for another day that those would be very sympathetic facts in a lien reduction, uh, hearing. And, uh, I would expect that, uh, after this property is in compliance, we can revisit this and, uh, and make an equitable adjustment of this fine to make sure we're not imposing a sanction that, uh, is, is unfair or unjust under the circumstances. So I've got a note of it here, Mr. Lighter. And, uh, uh, again, I think this is a process we can examine, uh, after the fact, but, uh, hopefully you'll be able to get in there fairly soon and get this cleaned up. Sounds good. Thank you very much. All right. Is there anything else the city needs on this? No, that's it, your honor. Thank you. All right. Mr. Lighter, thanks for coming in and you're free to go as well. Thanks. Have a good one. All right. You too. Your honor, our next case is going to be DEL 26015. That's 323 Cloverleaf Boulevard. All right. I'm ready. When you are, do we have anybody, do we have the respondent here? Yes, your honor. This respondent is here, but, uh. Excuse me, your honor. I'd like to interrupt if I may, please. Sure. Um, the gentleman, if I, um, would probably have to be sworn in as well. Okay. I did swear in when earlier with, when everyone else stood up, I'd be happy to do it again. Okay. I'm sorry, then that was my mistake. Oh, no, no worries. Thank you. Can I get your name, sir? Uh, my name's Mike Segrabic. Can you spell your last name? Uh, Z's in zebra, G's in George, R-A, B as in boy, I-K. Perfect. Um, all right. And what is your relationship to the property owner? Uh, I am, uh, at Cornerstone Church in Deltona, and I am, uh, she informed me of her violations, so I'm, uh, offering my services to help clean up the property. Okay. All right. So you're, okay. All right. Well, let me, uh, let me hear from the city then, and, uh, uh, see what's going on here. Yeah. I am Code Compliance Officer Todd Mead. I'm reading this case in for Code Compliance Officer Jeff Scott, who did the investigation on the case. This will be Massey case number DEL 26015, the city of Deltona v. Deborah A. V. Taylor. The property address is 323 Cloverleaf Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32725. The parcel ID number is 813-022-230-450. It was ruled on February 25th of 2026 that the property owner was given 14 days to comply. The owner did not come into compliance within those 14 days and has been receiving a fine of $25 a day since 3-11-2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,075 over 43 days. The city is requesting that the fines continue at $25 per day. That's it. Right. And I'm looking at the photos here that were, uh, I think introduced at the, at the last hearing. Um, is the property still in the same condition more or less? Uh, yes, sir. Uh, I am organizing, uh, a dumpster to be delivered to the property. And having a, uh, some volunteers help me go through Mrs. Taylor's, uh, belongings and throwing away what needs to be thrown away and what, what heirlooms that she does have to be saved. Is that Mrs. Taylor there with you? Yes. Yes, it is. Okay. All right. Very good. Well, uh, I, uh, appreciate the work that you all are doing to get this property cleaned up. And, uh, I know the city appreciates that as well. Um, uh, there was a previous finding violation and, uh, that violation continues. So I will make that finding today based on the, uh, the evidence presented, including the exhibits, which I'll receive in evidence. Um, we have fines that have accrued, uh, for the violations, uh, continuing past the compliance date that have resulted in fines of $1,075. And that file will continue to accrue at $25 per day until this property is brought into compliance. And hopefully that won't be too much longer. Obviously the sooner it gets done, the better to, to cut off those, uh, those fines from, from continuing to accrue. Um, as I indicated in the last year, and once the property is in compliance, there, there is a process to revisit the fines and potentially make fine reductions based on, you know, equitable circumstances. And there may be things going on here that, uh, would, uh, uh, warrant some relief in that respect, but we'll need to look at that after the property has been brought into compliance. Um, do you have any questions, Mr. Graybeck? Uh, yes. With the, where, where do I make sure that I can come to compliance when I, when we do come to compliance, where do I need to show proof or do I have to come to like the next hearing to prove that or. You should contact the officer who's, uh, the code officer handling the case. It was officer Scott. I'm not sure. Officer Mead is, is he still on the case or are you still on the case? So you would contact officer Scott, let him know that you're ready for inspection. You leave, you come, he'll come out and make sure that you're in compliance. If there's anything more that needs to be done, he'll inform you. But if it meets compliance, then he's put it in compliance. The fines will stop. You'll then be notified, uh, affidavit compliance, what the initial, the final fine is, and then you can go with the reduction on that later. Okay. All right. So contact Mr. Scott. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. And you do want to, you know, obviously don't want to delay doing that. Um, they won't come necessarily to you until they know it's ready. So, uh, make sure to let the officer know as soon as you've got this, you think you're in, you know, got it in compliance so they can look at it as soon as possible and potentially get this fine stopped as soon as possible. Okay. Sounds great. Judge. Thank you. All right. Thank you. City, any else on this one? Uh, that's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. You all are free to go. Thank you. Your Honor. Our next, our next case will be fire 004-2026. And that's 111 Howland Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Fire Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This will be case number fire dash 004 dash 2026 Massey. Um, this is the city of Deltona versus Fairwinds Credit Union. The parcel ID number is 920-604-000040. And this will be a Massey case. Um, this initial, this was initially a case for a violation of chapter 42, article four, fire codes, chapter 42 through 186, which adopts the latest edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In specific, the Florida edition of NFPA 1, chapter 13.1.6, detailed records documenting all systems and equipment, testing, and maintenance shall be kept by the property owner and shall be made available upon request to review by the AHJ. NFPA 1, chapter 13.1.9, whenever impairments, critical deficiencies, or non-critical deficiencies are identified in water-based fire protection systems, maintained in accordance with NFPA 25, they shall be corrected in a time frame approved by the AHJ. It was ruled on February 25, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days, March 27, 2026, to comply. The property did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $100 a day since March 28, 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $2,600 over 26 days. As of today's date, the property is still not in compliance. The city would like to request that the fines of $50 per day continue until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. All right. Let me make sure I'm clear. The fines were running at $100 per day, but you want them going forward at $50? It's $100 total for the two. Oh, for the two. I got you. Yes, sir. Sorry. Yeah, and which ones – I'm just making a note here. We've got A, B, C, and D. Which ones are outstanding? Violations A and C. Okay. Very good. Is there anyone here for the respondent? No, sir. All right. So I'll receive the exhibits, the city's exhibits and evidence, and having previously found a violation, I will now find that that violation continues and has continued past the compliance day for 26 days, accruing $2,600 in fines at a cumulative total of $100 a day. That fine will continue to accrue at $100 per day, $50 per violation count, violation A and violation C, and so that will continue to run until the property has been brought fully into compliance. And still, we'll continue to run that fine. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, thank you. No, sir. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be Fire 009-2026-915-Doyle Road. That's by Inspector Nadeau. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Fire Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This will be case number Fire-009-2026-MASSEY, the city of Deltona v. TCB-Deltona, LLC. The parcel ID number is 910-609-000010. This will be a Massey case. This initially was a case for a violation of Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the latest edition of Florida Fire Prevention Code, in specific, the Florida edition of NFPA 1, Chapter 13.1.6. Detailed records documenting all systems and equipment, testing, and maintenance shall be kept by the property owner and shall be made available upon request for review by the AHJ. NFPA 1, Chapter 4.1.3.2.2.5. Buildings shall be designed and constructed to provide reasonable signage and lighting to identify hazards, exits, means of egress, and other building safety features. NFPA 1, Chapter 11.1.7.3.1. Each disconnecting means shall be legibly marked to indicate its purpose unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident. In other than one or two family dwellings, the marking shall include the identification of the circuit source that supplied the disconnecting means. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved. NFPA 1, Chapter 10.11.1.6. Address numbers for suite units, etc. within a multiple tenant building or complex shall be individually identified in a manner approved by the AHJ. However, shall be at least six inches in height for all buildings, structures, or portions thereof. It was ruled on February 25, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days, March 27, 2026, to comply for violations A, B, C, and D. The property did not come into compliance with the violations A, B, C, and D within those 30 days and has been receiving a fee of $50 or $200 a day since March 28, 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $5,200 over 26 days. As of today's date, the property is still not in compliance. The city would like to request that the fines of $50 per day per violation continue for violations A, B, C, and D until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. All right. Thank you. And is there anyone here for the respondent? No, sir. All right. So I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence. And based on the exhibits and testimony, I'll find that, A, there was a previous finding violation. This property was found previously to be in violation as to the four violations charged and that those violations continue to exist at the property past the previously set compliance date. So fines have been accruing at a total of $200 per day. That's cumulative at $50 per the four counts. And that total to date is $5,200. That fine will continue to accrue until the property has been brought fully into compliance at $200 per day. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, sir. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, the next case will be Fire 012-2026. That's 951 Doyle Road. And that's by Fire Inspector Nadeau. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Fire Safety Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This will be case number Fire-012-2026 Massey. In the City of Deltona versus the Exchange Right Net Leased All-Cash 2% Exchange Right Real Estate LLC. Parcel number is 910-605-000010. This will be a Massey case. This initially was a case for a violation of Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the latest edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In specific, the Florida edition of NFPA 1, Chapter 13.7.3.1.1.1.4, all apparatus requiring rewinding or resetting to maintain normal operations shall be restored to normal after each abnormal condition. And that would be out of Chapter 72, or NFPA 72, Chapter 10.3.4. In NFPA 1, Chapter 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. It was ruled on February 25, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days, March 27, 2026, to come into compliance. The property did not come into compliance with violations A and B within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $100 a day since March 28, 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $2,600 over 26 days. As of today's date, the property is still not in compliance. The city would like to request that the fines of $100 per day per violation, it would be $100 per day, continue until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. All right. Thank you. Inspector, is anyone here for the respondent? No, sir. All right. So, I'll receive the city's exhibits in evidence and based on the testimony and the exhibits, the fine that we previously found a violation at this property. And two of those violations, violation A and violation B, continue to exist at the property. Because of that, the fines have been accruing since the compliance date at a cumulative total of $100 per day. That's $50 per count. And the fine to date has accrued to a total of $2,600. So, we'll impose that fine as well as continuing fines in the amount of $100 per day cumulative, which will run until the property's been brought fully into compliance, at which time those fines will cease to accrue. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, thank you. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be Fire 0182026. That's 2810 El Cam Boulevard. And that will be Fire Inspector Nadeau. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Fire Safety Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This will be case Fire 0182026. This is the City of Deltona v. 2810 Deltona, LLC. The parcel ID number is 813-074-250-200. This is a violation of Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the following violations. Violation A has been brought into compliance prior to this hearing today. Violation B, NFPA 1, Chapter 12.3.3.1, required fire-resistive construction, including fire barriers, firewalls, exterior walls, due to the location on property. The fire-resistive requirements, based on the type of construction, drafts, stop partitions, and roof coverings shall be maintained and shall be properly repaired, restored, or replaced where damaged, altered, breached, penetrated, removed, or improperly installed. The corrective action would be to repair the penetration in the one-hour-rated firewall using a UL-listed design, and just to please provide the materials utilized and the UL-listed design that they repaired the wall with. This case began October 24, 2025, while conducting a follow-up inspection to the initial inspection on September 3, 2025, at this address, where I observed the above-mentioned violation. The property owner was notified in writing of the violation and given a time frame to correct said violation. Subsequent re-inspections on December 5, 2025, December 18, 2025, January 6, 2026, February 17, 2026, and March 2, 2026, found no progress in the noted violation. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance with the remaining violation or a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. All right, very good. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? No, sir. All right, so I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence at this time, and based on the exhibits and the testimony, I will find a violation exists as to count B or violation B, violation A having been brought into compliance. For violation B, we're going to set a compliance date at 30 days from today, and if compliance is not achieved by that date, on the next day, we'll start running a $50 per day fine for that count, and we'll run that fine until the property has been brought fully into compliance. Is there anything else that the city is seeking on this case? No, sir. Our next case, Your Honor, will be Fire 0202026. That's 3045 Mallard Drive. It's Fire Inspector Nadeau. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Fire Safety Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This case is Fire-0202026, City of Deltona v. Deltona Community Church of God, Incorporated. Parcel ID is 813-041-00020. This is a violation of Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the following violations. Violation A, NFPA 1, Chapter 7.10.5.1, every sign required by 7.10.1.2 and 7.10.8.1, other than where operations or processes require low-level lighting levels, shall be suitably illuminated by a reliable light source. Externally and internally illuminated signs shall be legible in both the normal and emergency lighting modes. Repair the illuminated exit sign to function in emergency mode. This case began November 25, 2025, while conducting a fire inspection at this address, where I observed the above-mentioned violation, amongst other violations which were resolved prior to this hearing. The property owner was notified in writing of the violation and given a time frame to current said violation. Subsequent re-inspections on January 30, 2026, March 16, 2026, and April 8, 2026 found no progress on the noted violations as of today's date. The above violation is still outstanding. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance, a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. All right. Which, that's as to violation A? Yes, sir. All right. And you're going to go down all the violations separately? I'm sorry. I mean, there's all. You're going to go through each of the violations separately then? You've got a total of seven, I think. Yeah. All the other violations were brought into compliance. Oh, into compliance. Prior to, yes. Sorry. Oh, great, great. I missed that part. Sorry. Yeah. No, you probably said it, and it just got past me. All right. So, violations A through G, just on the only violation A remains, that's the one that concerns the exit sign, which I guess isn't lighting up when it should. Yes, sir. Okay. And you're seeking compliance date at 30 days out and $50 per day if noncompliant? Yes, sir. All right. And just to double check, there's no one here on behalf of the respondent? No, sir. All right. So, I'll receive the city's exhibits into evidence at this time, and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make a finding of violation as to violation A in the notice of violations. That's the one, as indicated, that pertains to the exit sign not being properly illuminated. We're going to set the compliance date at 30 days from today's date. And if compliance is not achieved by that deadline, then we'll start running a daily fine of $50 per day until that violation has been fully corrected. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? Yes, sir. All right. Very good. Your Honor, if I could, when you have a second, when you're done with that proceeding. Yeah, let me make sure. I think that was the last. Are there any other cases on the agenda? No, we don't have any more, Your Honor. Oh, all right. All right. And who's speaking? Are you here speaking about a particular case? Yeah, I'm here on the case that was withdrawn, DEL-24-002. We had a hearing scheduled for today, and it was canceled. And I wanted to, the fines were reduced to $6,000, and I wanted to make a plea to reduce them to zero, or to two at the most, $2,000. Okay, this is the one that was, it was indicated that there was a settlement, I guess, on the lien reduction issue. Are you saying that there's not a settlement? Yeah, there was a huge fine. I think it was over $100,000 initially. And my client acquired the property late last year and moved to rectify the issues. And they have been rectified. They have the affidavit of compliance. And the fines were reduced to $2,000 and $4,000, respectively. And my client wishes to have those reduced even further, and I wanted to make arguments to that effect. I don't know if it's been withdrawn, if I'm able to at this point, or how to proceed. Right. Well, let me ask the city. I mean, I guess this case was taken off the agenda. It sounds like there's a request being made to put it back on the agenda and reopen it. Is that what you're at? Let me get your name, just so I know who I'm speaking to. Nick Geraci. I'm an attorney at Lender Legal, the LLC, on behalf of the property owner, which is U.S. Bank as trustee. Okay. All right, Mr. Geraci. Geraci, let me, again, let me ask, are you asking to reopen the case? Because the city, I guess, feels like it's settled and closed. Well, I don't know, you know, the administrative procedure of how code violations and city ordinances work. I work in civil court, so I don't know what the proper procedure is. If the case is, if it's withdrawn, I don't know. There's been a fine assessed, and my client would like to have an opportunity to get it further reduced. So I don't know the proper procedure. Well, let me ask the city how it would like to proceed. I mean, again, in my experience with lien reduction matters and other jurisdictions, if the staff or the city or county makes an offer and that's accepted and a settlement is reached as to the fine reduction, then it typically doesn't come to me for a hearing. Then, you know, the fine gets, or the reduced fine gets paid, and that's the end of it. I guess if you want to reopen it, we'd be kind of starting over. And I don't have any of the details of what was, what the facts and circumstances are that warranted the significant reduction from a six-figure fine down to, you know, $6,000 total, something like that. I mean, usually there are factors, costs don't usually get reduced, so there may have been a lot of costs in that file if there was that big of a fine. But I'm happy to hear the case. I just don't know what the posture of it is since it was withdrawn from the agenda, and I haven't looked at it. Maybe the city can let me know what I would use the matter. Yes, sir. This is Danny Rock, compliance manager. Yeah, we withdraw this case because we did submit a, there was a resolution within our city ordinance that does apply in this matter. But once it was withdrawn, we're not ready to proceed if they would like to continue a reduction. We can probably look at it for next month, but we need to get advice from our legal department on this one. Okay. I mean, that seems reasonable to me, Mr. Drossi. If, I guess, if you don't want to proceed, if your client doesn't want to proceed with the amount that was discussed and as part of a settlement, we'd rather present the case. I'm happy to hear it, but I think it would be better to reset it with that understanding so that the city can come in prepared with, you know, as well to make its presentation. Okay. All right. I mean, there wasn't a settlement reached. It was just, it was reduced unilaterally. I mean, obviously my client's appreciative. They don't have to pay a hundred some odd thousand dollars, but they feel they moved fast enough and paid significant money to make the repairs. So, so it sounds like we have to continue to another day. Right. What are the, do you know offhand, does anybody know offhand what the costs are, what the city's costs are in the case? No, since it was withdrawn, we didn't get to do a cost analysis for staff. Um, but we'll be more than happy to, if we continue this and after legal advice from our city attorney, um, to maybe me at the next hearing. Right. And I'm, I'm, I'm, I haven't actually done a lien reduction for, uh, for the city of Deltona, but, um, uh, usually costs aren't reducible. Is that the case for the city as well? Yes, sir. So, in other words, you've got a, uh, floor there that would be the, the, the cost of, of prosecution. Again, I don't know what they are, but there may not be a lot of margin there between the 6,000 and the cost. But, um, I guess that's something you all can discuss. I mean, it's oftentimes where the cases accrue that much of a fine, uh, there may be some, you know, some, some costs, some, you know, three figures or four figure costs in there from, from the length of time it was open. But I don't know what they are, but you'd want to look at that and see what the margin is. Um, yeah, in other words, 6,000 dollars may be getting to, to about as low as you can get. But, again, I have no idea what the numbers are. I'm just, uh, they're kind of speaking from, from experience. But, uh, yeah, I would, I would do that. And I would, we'll go ahead and reset it for the next, you know, available hearing date. Uh, if, uh, if you all can't reach an agreement, if, uh, if the U.S. bank wants to, to, to have a hearing, again, I'm certainly, certainly happy to hear it. Um, but, uh, you know, the city ought to have it all properly noticed. Thank you, sir. All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Drassi. I appreciate you coming in. Does the city have anything else, uh, uh, on this agenda? Any final matters that we should attend to before we adjourn? No, sir. Do you have anything for us? I don't. Um, I will, uh, look for the draft orders when those get posted up to the, into the drive. I can get those turned around fairly quickly. Uh, we went, uh, went through these in pretty good order. Thank you, sir. And, uh, everything, uh, everything's going well and, uh, nice, smooth presentation. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Have a good evening, sir. All right. You too. We're adjourned. I will see you next time. Bye.