We're getting underway as scheduled at 5.30 p.m. My name is John Van Lanigham, and I am the City Special Magistrate for Code Compliance. I'll be conducting this evening's hearings. Before we get underway with the individual cases, we do have some preliminary items to attend to. The first thing I'd like to do is take the role, if I could, get a role of the officers present. Yes, sir. Code Compliance Manager, Danny Rahn. Sharon Shivers, Fire Marshal. Evening. Fire Inspector, Lisa Nadeau. Code Compliance Supervisor. Also, Your Honor, I'd like to mention that you said it was 2028. Oh, sorry. It's 2026, if I'm, I apologize. It's Officer Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Todd Meade, Code Compliance Supervisor. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. All right, anyone else? We have two more, sir. Okay. That'll be all, sir. Okay. All right. Very good. And now I'd like to ask everyone who's able to do so to stand with me so we can say the Pledge of Allegiance, if you would please 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. Thank you. You may be seated. I will, at this time, state for the record that I have had no communication about any of the cases on tonight's agenda with anyone, so no ex parte communications on my part to disclose. I have the agenda and the minutes from last month's agenda. Are there any objections to the approval of those minutes? Hearing none, I'll approve those minutes without objection. Are there any announcements for the record this evening? Yes, it is, Your Honor. We'd like to withdraw case DEL 26024. That's 2865 facing circle. We'd like to withdraw DEL 26026, 2496 Newmark Drive, also case number DEL 26029, 289 Providence Boulevard, and case fire 272026, 1682 Providence Boulevard. And we'd like to continue DEL 26031, and that's 1240 East Normandy Boulevard. All right, very good. Take those off the agenda. All right. At this time, let me go ahead and square in all the officers and other witnesses who are present in the room. If you would all raise your right hands for me, please. Do you square or from the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. All right, very good. And with those preliminary matters out of the way, we can begin calling the cases, starting with the old business. Sir, we did have some cases we would like to present first due to we have a staff member that's on call, and two, we have a director from Planning and Zoning here. He's on Zoom to hear those cases. Okay, that's fine. Okay, our first case will be DEL 26027, and that's 2113 Laredo Drive. Let's get that up here. Six. Do we have anyone present for the respondent? No, sir. No, sir. And you may proceed. All right. Good afternoon. I am Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona versus Investments, LLC. The parcel ID number is 8113-020-10030. This is a violation of Deltona City Ordinance 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, 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 permit for a single-family residence. This case began on January 22nd and was assigned to department manager. He spoke with the property owner and gave him two weeks to obtain the permit. On February 13th, the property remained in violation and the case was reassigned to me. On February 14th, a notice of violation was posted at the front of the property. On the 23rd, I spoke with the property owner and he stated he would go to City Hall to pay the fees for the permit and update the roofer's information. As of today, the property remains in violation and no permit has been issued. The city requests 30 days, June 26th, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $50 per day past this date. All right, very good. Anything else? No, that would be all, sir. All right, so I'll receive the city's exhibits in evidence. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, I won't make a filing violation as to the charge stated in the notice, which is this work without a permit, we'll set the compliance date as recommended to June 26th, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a $50 per day fine on June 27th, 2026. I'll run that fine until compliance has been achieved. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, there's not. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case will be DEL 26025A and E, A-E, 241 Fort Smith Boulevard. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Officer Scott. I'm a code compliance for the city of Deltona. This will be case number DEL 2605A through E, City of Deltona v. Aldris Cotton Stewart in German Wheeler. Property address is 241 Fort Smith Boulevard, Deltona, Florida, 32738. Parts ID number is 813-042-250-230. This property is being brought before the special magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. Violation A. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance section 668, subsection 26, 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. Subsection 26 states no parking of any vehicles on undeveloped or vacant parcels. Corrective action for said violation is to remove all vehicles' equipment from the undeveloped vacant lot. Violation B. Violation B and C are the same ordinance, but two separate violations, so I'm going to read them both. City of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopted in the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. There's two no-permit cases. One was for the shed on the property, and the other one was the fence. So that's violation B and C. Violation D, the City of Deltona ordinance section 38-110, subsection B2, which states that accumulation of waste, yard waste, rubble, and or debris are declared to be a nuisance and must be abated in their entirety. Corrective action for said violation is to properly dispose of it or store inside an enclosed building, and on reference to old tree debris piles and other miscellaneous debris on that property. Violation E, City of Deltona ordinance section 102.2, which states the city shall support the use of signage through an application process and issue a permit when required by this code for both permanent and temporary signage. Signed permit shall be administered and issued through the city's building and enforcement services department and the permit application shall be accompanied by a sign plan indicating the appearance, dimensions, and location of the signs that conform to this sign code. Signs should not be constructed, fabricated, or installed until permitted. All signs within the city unless vested or specifically exempted in this sign code shall have a sign permit and be installed and used as permitted. Alterations to sign plans or to sign during construction shall be subject to approval by the building and enforcement service department. Corrective action for said violation is to remove all business signs from the property or attain the permit. I received this case from Supervisor on January 5, 2025 to address violations at this location. I conducted a site visit and observed vehicles, equipment, parked at this vacant property. On March 23, 2025, I observed a mail on the vacant property. With the direction from my supervisor, I contacted a mail who stated he was the property owner. I advised him that the equipment cannot be stored on the vacant commercial property. The owner stated he was told by someone from the city that it was okay to have this equipment stored on the vacant lot. I provided the property owner with my supervisor contact information. On April 6, 2026, notice of violation was issued for all violations. Notice of hearing was posted at the property on May 4, 2026. The property owner came to City Hall yesterday to try to reschedule this hearing. My supervisor reached out to him via phone with no response, left a voicemail. As of today, around 12 p.m., the property remains in violation. For violation A, D, and E, the city would like to request 14 days, June 10, 2026, for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $100 per day for each violation. And for violation B and C, 30 days, June 26, 2026, or a fine of $100 per day for each violation to be imposed until such a time that the property owner notified the city of compliance. All right, very good. Officer, I'll receive an evidence of the city's exhibits. And just to confirm, there's no one here for the respondent? No, sir. I'll receive the city's exhibits in the evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'll make findings of violation as to the five counts in the notice. As to violation A, D, and E, we're going to set a compliance date at 14 days out, which is June 10, 2026, with a $100 per day fine beginning to run on the next day. If compliance has not been achieved, it would be $100 per day for each violation, and it would run on each violation that's not corrected by June 10. It would start running that fine on June 11. With respect to violations B and C, these concern the work without permits, both as to the SHED, which is violation B, and defense violation C. Those violations will be subject to a compliance date of June 26, 2026, which is 30 days out. And a $100 per violation per day would begin to run on June the 27th if those violations are either of them are not corrected by June 26. So, again, we've got two compliance dates on this case, June the 10th, 2026, for violations A, D, and E, June 26, 2026, for violations B and C. And for each of those five violations, the penalty for failure to timely correct the violation will be $100 per day beginning to run on the date after the next day after the compliance date and running until compliance has been achieved as to that violation. Is there anything else the city is seeking on this case? No, sir, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26019. That's 1995 Monfort Lane. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I'm Cooke Appliance Officer Joel Taylor, City of Deltona v. Travis Allen Picker and Leslie Nicole Picker-Kelly. Parcel ID number is 813-049, excuse me, 050-120. This violation of the city 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 large, enlarge, excuse me, 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 office and obtain required permit. The corrective action for said violation, owners must obtain permit for fence and meet zoning requirements. This case was given to me by my director, Danny Rahn, on May 11th of 2026 for fence being installed at incorrect height. Residents submitted permit on March 2nd, 2026. Permit was issued past final inspection due to discrepancies with zoning regulations, which led to the permit being withdrawn or revoked, excuse me. I was advised to post notice of violation and notice of hearing on May 11th of 2026 for no permit. As of today, the permit has not been reinstated. The city requests 30 days, which would be June 26th of 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine of the amount of $100 per day past the aforementioned date. All right, very good. Anything else? The residents are here. The respondents are here. Who's here on behalf of the respondents? We have both? Yes. The, all right, I can't see them yet, but did you have any questions for Officer Taylor? Talking to me? Yes. Yeah, I can't, yeah, I can't see at the moment, but can you state your name? Travis Vicker. All right, there you go. Very good. Did you have any questions for the officer? No, I don't. Did you have any evidence or testimony? Do I just give my story now to you, or? That's fine. Were you here earlier to be sworn in? Yes, I was. All right, go ahead. So the situation began with our neighbors over the past few months. They've been trying to encroach on our property, what we do in our property. So I put railroad ties down for the first time. He told me that he doesn't want it because it's going to make his property look bad. And I said, well, it's not what you want on my property. And then I put the railroad ties down. He called the city, said I need a permit. I said, I don't need a permit for railroad ties. So they kept trying to involve themselves in my business and my property. So I put a fence up. I came to the city, wanted to do it the legal way so he wouldn't have any issues with the city. I talked to the city staff. And from the start, I mean, it was unprofessional. No one knew what was going on with the fence permit. I brought my own research that I did and told them it has to be this height at this point in the yard. I was told that I was wrong. And he wrote on my survey where the five foot had to go down to on the angle of my house. So he physically wrote on the survey where the five foot starts and where the six foot starts and where the fence itself starts after the right-of-way. So obviously with the permit in hand, we started the fence installation with the company, got it installed, called the city out for inspection. It passed inspection. And because of all the ongoing issues, I had a meeting with the deputy city manager like two weeks later. And in that meeting is when we found out that the permit was issued in error and that we're liable for the expenses to fix the fence. So obviously, you know, I'm frustrated with them not knowing how to do their job correctly. And now I'm having to be responsible for fixing the fence, even though they issued it in error. Obviously, they took accountability so that they were wrong, but they didn't make it right. I mean, making it right would be them paying for it or because they issued the permit and issued an error, then they, I guess, swoop it under the rug or they pay for the expenses to fix the fence. Because I'm not paying for the fence to get it fixed because it's not my problem that, you know, they didn't know where to start the fence on the certain height. And, I mean, I guess that's about all. But I just think it's pretty unfair that we have to now go out of pocket again to fix the fence. We already put the trees up because the permit was approved. So the trees are in the way of the fence. Even if we had to cut it and fix it, now we're going to damage the trees. It's more money. So I hope we can come to a resolution that the city can either make it right with us or whatever you see in this fair. All right. Mr. Picker, does the city have any questions for the respondent, Mr. Picker? No, sir. So, Mr. Picker, if I understand you correctly, you're not disputing the issue concerning the height of the fence and whether it complies or the city maintains doesn't comply. But your question or your issue is whether you should be required to pay for the alteration of the fence in order to get the permit? Yes, sir. Yeah, I mean, like I said, if they issued the permit and it was approved, the inspection passed, we've already went out of pocket for the fence installation. And now the trees and, you know, to fix the fence, obviously, it's more money out of my pocket to fix the fence. So I don't seem it's fair that we're held accountable, but the city is not held accountable for their actions. Right. Yeah, you've kind of got two issues there. One is the code compliance issue and the other is the liability issue. And, unfortunately, I don't have jurisdiction to deal with the liability issue. What are you in regards to what liability issue? That is whether or not the city is liable to pay for the fence. That's your position. And if I go to the city in good faith that they're the professionals and I'm doing the legal way, why should I have to be held accountable because they messed up? That's my point. I mean, it's like eight feet that has to be fixed. So I don't think you see it's a big issue if the trees are already towering over the fence height. I mean, I get your saying with the legal issue, but like I said, I shouldn't be held accountable and I shouldn't have to pay out of my pocket for something the city messed up on. That's why it's frustrating. Right. And, again, I understand what you're saying and I'm sympathetic even to what you're saying if all the facts that you're relaying are true. I think I heard on it directly because the original permit was revoked. So at least there's certainly some truth, if not a great deal or whole truth to what you're saying. I'm not speeding that. However, I don't have the jurisdiction to resolve the issue that you're raising. I'm not trying to dodge it. It's just that as a code compliant special magistrate, I'm not here charged with it. I don't have general jurisdiction like a circuit court to decide all issues. And you're raising a liability issue that's not within my scope of authority. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but, like, what am I here for then to come to resolution? I mean, like, what's my next steps in trying to fix the issue then? I mean, the issue before me is simply is the fence in compliance with the code. And the city has testified, and I don't think you're disputing that it's not in the sense that, I mean, obviously you're telling me that you feel wrong because you issued a permit that you complied with and built the fence. And now you're being told you have to make a change and you shouldn't have to pay for it. And, again, I understand what you're saying, but I don't have the authority to decide that dispute. It's a different dispute. I mean, you have to go elsewhere to have that resolved because I don't have general jurisdiction to award damages, for example, on a question like that. I can decide that the fence is not in compliance, which it appears not to be, and set a compliance date. But the question of who pays and whether the city is liable or not liable isn't an issue that's committed to my jurisdiction. I know that doesn't sound fair, but I just don't have the power to settle that one. Does that make sense? Well, yeah, I mean, it's just confusing because I came here to resolve the issue, but it sounds like you don't have the power to even trump what they did. I mean, like I said, they're not being held accountable. I mean, I'm responsible for being held accountable for my property, but if I come to the city in good faith that they're the professionals and they give me this information, I have them even write on my survey so we didn't have this issue. This is the whole reason why I came to the city to get the permit is because I didn't want to have these issues. I mean, my neighbor's already calling on me every week because he doesn't like what I do on my property because it doesn't suit what he thinks is necessary. So, I mean, I just don't see, I don't know what you even think is a resolution at this point because it sounds like I have to go elsewhere, but. Right. Well, I mean, I can resolve the code issue, which is to find a violation instead of compliance state. You're raising different issues whether the city should pay for it, and I think for that one, you're either going to have to reach an agreement with the city or go to court where jurisdiction lies to resolve issues like that. So, you have to take it to a different form, to a different judge. Again, I know that sounds very convenient, but I don't have the, I'm not vested with the power to decide the dispute that you want me to resolve. I mean, given the pictures and the situation, you can't make an exception with, I mean, the situation. I don't have the jurisdiction to order the city to pay you damages. Well, I'm not saying damages. I'm just saying keep it as it is. I mean, the trees are already up. There's no regulation for the tree height. That's why I put the trees up there. So, I mean, I don't see the issue with keeping it as it is. Well, I think the issue with keeping it as it is is it's not the right height, so it's not meeting the zoning requirements. I mean, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I guess we're just going back and forth. I mean, ultimately, they have to, if they're going to give me information, and I mean, I'm, like I said, I'm coming here in good faith because they are the professionals, but no one's being held accountable. Well, again, whether or not someone is held accountable is an issue that has to be presented elsewhere. I don't have the jurisdiction to decide that issue. I'm not saying it's not an issue. I just have the authority to settle it for you. Okay, so where do we go from here? I think on a liability issue like that, you probably have to go to court. But, again, I'm not in a position to give you legal advice either. Again, I'm not trying to be rude to you. I understand what you're saying. I understand the frustration. It's just not my – it's not my role to decide those questions. Okay. So does the city have anything else on this one? No, sir. So I'll receive the exhibits and evidence. I'm going to make a violation as to the charge stated in the notice regarding this fence, and I'll set the compliance date to June 26th as recommended of 2026 with $100 per day fine beginning to run on June 27th. If compliance has not been achieved by that date, I do want to make it clear that I'm not resolving the issue that the respondent has raised concerning the liability of the city. I'm not going to comment on the merits of that one way or the other because I do think it's outside my jurisdiction to resolve that kind of potential civil liability. I'm charged with deciding whether or not there's a code violation, and I'm finding that there is, whether or not the city should be responsible to pay or compensate respondents for some damages is a different issue for a different judge to decide. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, Your Honor. Anything else, Mr. Picker? Any other questions? Yes, he has another question. He has another question. So I am curious, like, if I was told to come here to resolve this issue, like, why was I told to come here if we're not coming to a resolution? I mean, why was I told to come here and waste my time by the city if it's not an issue that can even be resolved? Well, I mean, there is an issue. It just doesn't really seem to be in genuine dispute. That concerns whether or not the fence as built meets the requirements for a fence in that location. So that's the issue I can decide. You are more interested in a separate issue, and it's an important issue, but it's just not an issue that I can settle for you. Right. I mean, like I said, but why was I told to come here then if, I mean, I obviously know it's not in compliance. I mean, that's obvious, but I don't understand why I'm here if there's nothing that can be done. Well, I don't know what you were told or not told about what the scope of the hearing would be, but that's the issue for this hearing, whether the fence is in compliance. Right, I mean, it's just a waste of my time if you're going to come here and tell me the same thing. I mean, now I'm $100 every day I'm late on this fine. I mean, you were going to say that no matter what, it sounds like, because you have another option. Well, I don't know, because until I heard the case, I didn't know if I was going to find the fence in violation. I mean, I didn't know. Did they not brief you on the situation before we came here? I mean, that's what I'm saying. Like, why did I come here if we know it's not within compliance? That's not the issue. Like, I'm not fighting that it's not within compliance. And that is the issue in these cases, typically. I mean, sometimes, many times it's not disputed, but that's the issue in these cases, whether it's in compliance. I mean, that's the issue for the code compliance special management. That's the issue for me. But that's the only issue for me. Okay. I got nothing else, then. All right. Thanks for coming in, Mr. Picker. Good luck to you. Are we ready for the next case? Mark. Your Honor, our next case is going to be DEL 26001. That's 2638 North Juliet Drive. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. What's up here? This is the old business? Yes, this is a Massey. 26. Is that it? That's us, right? Yeah. Good evening. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is the City of Deltona versus Amy and Phillip Olberg. The parcel ID number is 813-032-600-050. It was ruled on January 28, 2026 that the property owner was given 90 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 90 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $25 per day since April 29, 2026. As of today, the property has not come into compliance and has accrued a total fine of $700 over 28 days. The City requests that the fines continue at $25 per day until the property has been brought into compliance and has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. All right, so we've been running a $25 per day fine since April 29th? Yes, sir. And 28 days, $700 is it to be accrued? All right. Correct. And do we have anyone here for the respondents? Yes, Your Honor. All right. And who is this? My name is Phillip Olberg. Do you have any questions for the Code Officer? I do not, but I have a statement that I would like to read tonight, please. All right, go ahead. But first and foremost, I'd like to say that I do appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to make it clear that we are not refusing to comply with the code requirements. We fully understand the violation and we want to correct it. The challenge is we simply do not have the financial means to make the required repairs at this time. Over the last 90 days, we have taken every reasonable step available to secure funding. We have applied for a HELOC, a reverse mortgage, state assistance programs, and county assistance programs. All of these applications have been denied and we have documentation for each denial. We have also reached out to the Rebuild Florida program, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Volusia County, the City of Deltona's Housing and Community Development Department, and the Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, among others. We are continuing to pursue any possible path to fund the repairs. Under Florida Statute 162.09, subsection 2, paragraph B, the Board is required to reconsider the actions taken by the homeowner to correct the violation. We want to emphasize that we have been actively trying to resolve this issue and we are not ignoring the problem. We simply cannot afford the repair right now, despite exhausting every option available to us. We are respectfully requesting additional time and for fines not to continue at this point. Starting, well, continuing daily fines is not going to help us reach compliance. It will only make it harder for us to ever afford the repair. Our goal is to fix the issue and we are doing everything within our power to get there. We are requesting a stay of fines to comply based on documentation of financial hardship and our ongoing efforts to resolve the violation. Thank you. Does the City have any questions for Mr. Oldberg? No, Your Honor. Does the City have anything further? No, sir. I have something, sir. Yes, it's not in compliance now. There is a process for reduction in fines that once the property is in compliance, we will be more than happy to, you know, go through that route. But at this time, since no compliance, we will go with the ruling from the special measure that there is a reduction in fine process that we can do once it is in compliance. Well, thank you and I appreciate your point that I was going to raise that to Mr. Oldberg, your request for staying the fine is denied. I'm not going to do that part of the code enforcement regime is the imposition of these fines to get the property into compliance. And financial hardship and financial hardship in and of itself is something that might be considered after the property is in compliance as grounds for reducing the fine and making an equitable adjustment of the total liability of the lien. But we don't look at that until after the property, but we don't look at that until after the property is in compliance. So the first rule of business is to just to get to get on top of it diligently and get the property into compliance as soon as you can. I hear what you're saying about the financial, you know, financial hardship and and and I'm sympathetic to that, too. But this the property doesn't need to be brought into compliance before we can talk about giving potentially giving relief from the from the penalty. But the way things stand now, the property remains out of compliance. There's really no dispute about that. And given that that's that's circumstance, I am going to enter the imposing fine. It's accrued to the amount of seven hundred dollars as today's date, the date of the hearing, running at twenty five dollars per day. And that fine will continue to accrue. I mean, on the one hand, it's a relatively low daily fine. On the other hand, even at twenty five dollars per day, over time, that does become a big number. So it is important to stay on this. But at this at this juncture, Mr. Holberg, I'm going to have to to to enter that over imposing the fine and and not stay the fines from running at this time because we still don't have compliance. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, Your Honor. All right. Do you have anything else, Mr. Holberg? Any questions? I have no questions. Nothing further. Thanks for coming in. You are free to go. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be D.E.L. Two six zero two three. That's thirty one fifteen Yorkshire Drive. Fifteen. Got it. Your Honor, I'm sorry. We'd like to withdraw that case if possible. All right. You want to take it completely off the agenda or just move it back? Just withdrawing completely. OK. It's in compliance. OK. Very good. Your Honor, our next case will be D.E.L. Two six zero three zero. And that's A through E twelve hundred Deltona Boulevard. Also, this office is going to need to be sworn in. OK. OK. And this is the alleged repeat? Yes, Your Honor. Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. And who am I swearing in? Nicholas Lopez. Oh, I see you there. If you could raise your hand for me, please. Yes, sir. The testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. You may proceed. This will be D.E.L. Twenty six zero three zero A through E. My name is Nicholas Lopez. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be case number twenty six zero three zero A. City of Deltona versus Deltona Wellness LP. The parcel ID number is eight one three zero zero six zero zero zero zero two zero. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section eighteen dash three adopting the latest edition of the Florida building code section one oh five point one, 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 instillation of which is regulated by 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 permit number B L D C two zero dash zero zero two eight. Applications must be submitted to the city of Deltona two three four five Providence Boulevard. As of today, May twenty seventh twenty twenty six, the property owner has not obtained a valid permit. The city would like to request an immediate fine for the property failing to come into compliance with a fine of one hundred dollars per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Sir, this will be a hundred dollars per day per violation, the five violations as a repeat offender. And we would like to fines to start today. If you'd like, your honor, I can read off each and every single permit number that's relevant to this case. Why don't we go ahead and put this on the record? And go ahead. Yes, sir. First one again will be B L D C two zero dash zero zero two eight. Nick, it'll be eight two. Is that two eight or eight two? I got eight two on the agenda. This is from your email, sir. You want to come look at it? You want to look at it? If it's in the email, it's going to be. So let me correct the agenda, sir. It'll be zero zero two eight. Two eight. OK. Zero zero two eight. Yes, sir. Got it. Second will be M E C C two one dash zero zero zero two. Third one will be B L D C two one dash zero one four zero. Fourth permit will be M E C C two three dash zero zero zero five. Fifth permit will be E L E C two four dash zero zero six two. And the five permits read off correspond with the letters A through E. Well, in the previous case with the order opposing fine back in July of 2024, um, what happened with those fines? But was that satisfied there was a lien satisfaction and then they ended up being in violation again because the permits were never, um, they never became finalized so they're now in violation again. They were the same permits. Yes, sir. Let me correct the officer, sir. It was different permits, different permits. Correct. And it's a violation of the same ordinance. Same ordinance. Right. Work without permits. All right. Very good. Um, city have anything else on this one? No, sir. All right. And, and who's see, I've got someone here for the respondent. Yes. You have Michael Mather representing the owner on zoom. Okay. And what's your relationship to the owner to digital wellness? I'm the owner's representative in town. The owners, uh, owners are a, uh, group in New York and Boca Raton. All right. I mean, what, in what capacity are you their attorney? Are you a property, property manager, property manager. All right. And your last name is Mather M A T H E R. Correct. All right. Did you want to give testimony? Yes, sir. All right. Let me swear you in. Did you raise your right hand, please? You swear or a front test when you give me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Go ahead. Okay. So first of all, I don't understand the repeat violation. I don't have on record and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Any, any written violation regarding these permits before now, some of these go back a number of years. I was notified by email by Danny Ron of 10 violations that he wanted. So he wanted me to clear up five of them had been cleared. Um, some months ago. Um, and then he sent me an updated list in, uh, February of 2000 of, of this year. I shared that list with Chad Tate and Samuel Schaller, uh, asking their assistance. These were, um, these, these were tenants who had, uh, work done on their units, um, with permits. Uh, I renewed the permits, um, with the hopes that we'd get these cleared up. Uh, Chad, um, said that he would have to go back, pull the permits and get the, uh, get the, uh, get what the permits covered. So he knew what he would have to inspect. And then he had to engage with Lee, which is one of the other assistant fire marshals. I believe that's her capacity, uh, to find out which, which one or two that she had to be involved in. Um, they have not taken this with any kind of, uh, um, time emphasis. Um, and I was not aware up until being informed of the magistrate hearing that, that time was a pressing issue. These are not safety violations. These are just final inspections, but I did, I did in good faith, renew those permits, not once, but twice. Um, this, so this is the first time I'm hearing that this is a repeat violation. We actually welcome sometimes these magistrate hearings because they give us the capacity and authority to go back to our tenants and get involved and solve the problem once and for all, uh, and charge them any expenses that, that, um, that, that, that we undergo, uh, in correcting these violations. So having normally we would get 30 days and those 30 days gives us a lot of authority, a lot of, you know, a lot of ability to go in and just take care of this ourselves. But, um, and one of these violations, by the way, I already sent the photo, sent the photographs to Chad that, that it came into compliance a couple of days ago, but all we're asking for is, is an understanding of how this is a repeat, how we've never received anything prior to this that I'm aware of. Um, I'm not aware that we're under any penalties and, and even the mention of, well, there were different permits. I'm not sure what that means. So we're happy to come in. We'd like the 30 days that we would normally get at a, at a hearing like this. Um, and we are confident that we can come into compliance with the 30 days. I just feel like under the circumstances, unless that, unless somebody can show me that we have been given, been given information that we're in violation prior to this with fines and then fail to come into compliance. And again, explain the whole different permit numbers. I think that this is just patently unreasonable. We're, we're reasonable people. We're reasonable company. We've, we've improved the shopping center a thousand percent over the last six, seven years. And so we just want the 30 days. And look at these permits. Uh, it's just the work that we're talking about here. I see what, what these permits are for. One of them, one of them is for a, um, I think an air conditioning unit. One of them was for an office build out. They were all done by professional contractors who just simply at the end of the day failed to get their final inspections. One of them was, um, some confusion about a demolition permit that we completed. It was inspected by the former head of the department. Uh, but prior to me, it was like the week he was retiring and we don't think that he, um, uh, finalized the paperwork for us. So we were just kind of brought back to this. Chad finally, after two months, walked me over to show me what he wanted to come into compliance 10 days ago, six days later, we brought it into compliance. So we've been, we've been, I, I emailed Chad and Samuel Schaller on 216 asking for some assistance in this so that we could just get it cleared up and they're busy guys. Uh, they didn't treat it with any kind of urgency. I didn't treat it with any kind of urgency because I knew we would get there. And then when I knew it was coming into, into code violation, to me, that was good news because that would give me the ability to go to these tenants and say, I'm now involved. I'm going to fix this. It's going to be at your expense because we have to do this. But again, the whole repeat violation thing, I don't understand it. I don't feel like we were properly notified of that. Um, and I feel like we've been for the last, well, now three and a half months, a hundred days, we've been, we've been, we've been in communication with Chad. We've been in communication with Samuel Schaller and we've been trying to move forward with this. Like I said, one of them is, one of them has already been taken care of. So, uh, we just simply want the 30 days. Does the city have any questions for Mr. Matters? No, sir. I see. Do you have anything else on this one? No, your honor. What was that, sir? And did you have any, any other evidence or anything else you wanted to present? Sir, I'm Co-Compliance Manager Danny Ron. First email that went to Mr. Matter was on July 8th, 2025. I have description and the permit numbers on there that these permits have expired. That's my first email. Second email was on December 4th. Mr. Matter, I'm looking for an update on these permit status, trying to work in them, trying to work with them as much as possible. Next email was on March 12th. Um, same permit numbers. It's got description to all the, the type of permits they were applied for. Still no compliance. April 30th. I, this is where I did mention that these are considered repeat cases. Um, and I, I actually, I'll write it down here real quick. Hold on. Give me a second. Oh, he's looking that up. I'm, I'm not in disagreement with the gist of what Mr. Ron is saying. I will have, however, say that when he first contacted me last summer, it was with 10 of these violations. And then I got back with him about the fact that many of them were resolved. He sent me an update with five violations. And it was only last month that he said that these were repeat violations and he never described what that meant. And I don't know whether that is proper notice that these fines would be immediate one. Our experience for the last, since this ownership took over the property, uh, our experience has been, we go to these magistrate hearings. We're given 30 days and the vast majority of them were, we clear within 30 days. And we do want, we do recognize the importance of turning these up. But if you look at the dates on these permits, I'm not sure if you understand how these permits work, but if you look at the last two digits on the permits, it's, um, it's the, it's the year the permits were assigned. One of them goes back to 2020, one of them goes back to 2021, one of them goes back to 2023. So many years went by with no efforts to get these things taken care of. As soon as Danny Ron brought them to my attention, I started taking care of them, perhaps without, with not with the same urgency that he would like. And I understand that I, I respect what Danny Ron's job is, but I have been working for the last 10 months to, to resolve these. And I've been working for the last, since, uh, February 16th with urgency, with Chad and Sam. They've both been very helpful, but not with any kind of urgency. I'm still waiting on Chad to get back with me about when he can schedule these, these, um, inspections, because that's all these are, is final inspections. But when he can get back with me with these final inspections, because he has to dig out the permit to know what he's inspecting. And then of course, I have to go renew it for a third time. Because like I said, I, in good faith, went and renewed them thinking we could resolve these with just a simple inspection. But Sam Scheller's a busy guy. Chad Tate's a busy guy. And I don't think that they understood that these were repeat violations or any bigger urgency. I think they look at the dates and go back, okay, these are three, four, five, and six years old. We need to get them handled. Yes. But I didn't know they were, I didn't know this was considered a repeat violation. And I still don't understand that I've never been notified about the first violation. Uh, and then they, and then originally the, uh, the, um, code enforcement officer referred to the fact, well, there are different permit numbers now. So I don't know how that, if they're different permit numbers, how are they repeats? So yes, it's the same, I guess it's the same code. But if we saw the original ones, and now we have different ones that have just, that they only came to light again last summer, Danny Ron, you know, he reached out to me very kindly and said, Hey, there's a bunch of these things we need to get taken care of. And I said, Hey, I think we need to get, take, take care of them too. And I've been moving along, but, but without understanding the urgency and with dealing with the fact that Chad Tate and Sam Michelle are really busy guys with other things and they didn't seem to consider these urgent. So I, I just simply am asking the city to say, okay, we understand your side or, or show me where they notified us that we were in a violation. I don't know, a couple of years ago, show me, show me where I would have any reason to believe that this was a repeat violation and that I would be under instantaneous fines. And I'll understand that I'll be able to go back to the owners. I'll be able to go back to my boss and explain it. But lacking that, I think it's fair to just simply give us the 30 days. I don't, is that an unreasonable request, Mr. Rump? I mean, the, the notice of hearing does specify that it's a repeat violation and does advise that fines may be imposed, uh, if violations are corrected by today's date, May 27th. So there's, there is some notice in the notice of hearing, uh, maybe not as, uh, prominent or as clear as would, you know, as to get your attention, but it is there. Um, it does say it's a repeat violation. But, but, well, I'm sorry, forgive me for interrupting, but there's no evidence to me that it's a repeat violation. I'm, they, have they provided evidence to this, to this hearing that this evidence that this is a repeat violation other than just to say so? Have they provided evidence that they have, that they have in writing informed us other than, other than with a notification to us? There's the, there's the prior order, uh, uh, Mr. Mathers, it, uh, made findings of a violation of section 18.3. So, I mean, in that sense, it's, uh, it's a repeat, you know, a categorical repeat. That is, you've got, uh, repeat violations of the same ordinance. Um, uh, I guess it's different work, you know, uh, but it's still work without a permit. In any event, um, uh, here, here's what I'm going to do. Um, uh, there's no dispute about the violations in the notice. Uh, I don't hear Mr. Mathers saying that these issues are in compliance. Um, so I'm going to receive the city's exhibits in evidence. I'll make a finding of violation as to the, uh, as to the five violations alleged in the notice, uh, A3E. Um, the big dispute here is about when to start the fines running and how much time, if any, to give the respondents. The city wants the fines to start today. Respondents asking for 30 days, uh, for various reasons that we've been going over. Um, I, I'm not going to, uh, to, uh, to give an additional 30 days. There was a notice, uh, or, uh, advanced notice in the notice of violation, a warning that fines could be imposed starting today. Uh, and that was noticed violations 21 days ago, uh, not 30 days, but three weeks. Um, but, uh, I will give a little additional time, um, uh, given that Mr. Mathers has made, given some testimony about getting, uh, on top of this and getting tenants involved in getting these permits finalized. And, uh, certainly would like to see that done as soon as possible, uh, to get this into compliance, uh, without necessarily, uh, bringing down a, a big fine on top of the respondent here. But, uh, instead of imposing the, uh, uh, uh, the, uh, fines running from today's date, I'm going to set a compliance date at 14 days out, which will be June the 10th. Uh, if compliance is not achieved by June 10th, we're going to set one a $100 per day per violation, uh, fine on each of the violations that remains uncorrected. So the fine would begin as to each uncorrected violation on June the 11th and want to tell the property is in compliance. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, your honor. Mr. Mathers, anything else? Any questions? No, I, I actually think that's a fair compromise. I believe we can, I believe we can meet that date. Uh, the only thing I would like to say, state for the record is I will need assistance from Chad Tate and Lee and possibly Samuel Scheller to actually meet those deadlines. And, and I would ask that they handle this with the same kind of urgency that I will obviously have to handle it. Well, let's see. I'll see if you can get that done. Obviously. I think everyone wants to see compliance as soon as possible. All right. Thank you, your honor. I appreciate your time. All right. Thanks for coming in. You're free to go, Mr. Mathers. Right. Your honor, our next case will be fire 0 to 8 to 0 to 6. That's 1240 Providence Boulevard. Good evening, your honor. Good evening. I am fire safety inspector Lisa Nadeau. This case is fire dash 0 to 8 dash 2026. Um, 1240 Providence Boulevard, uh, plaza, the complex, um, the city of Deltona versus truly corporation. The parcel number ID is 8 1 3 0 0 5 4 7 0 4 2 0. This or these, or this is a violation of chapter 42, article four fire codes, chapter 42 dash one eight six, which adopts the most recent addition of the Florida fire prevention code as adopted by the state fire marshal for the following violations. So please note that violations B C and D have come into compliance prior to this hearing violation a NFPA one chapter 11 point 1 point 7 point 3 point 1 each disconnecting means shall be legibly marked to include, to indicate its purpose unless located and arranged. So the purpose is evident in other than one, two family dwellings. The marking shall include their identification of the circuit source that supplies the disconnecting means. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environmental involved. Um, corrective action would be to label the large disconnect located on the exterior rear of the building to indicate its purpose. This case began January 13th, 2026 while conducting a fire inspection at this location 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 timeframe to sit to, to correct said violation. Subsequent re-inspections on two 1826 March 18th, 2026 April 8th, 2026 April 15th, 2026 April 28th, 2026 and May 20th, 2026 found no progress on the noted look on the noted violation. As of today's date, the above mentioned violation is still non-compliant. 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. Very good. Anything else on this one? No, sir. And is there anybody here for the responding? No, sir. All right. So I will, uh, receive the, uh, city's, uh, exhibits and evidence at this time and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make the finding violation as to the one outstanding, uh, issue, which is violation A, uh, involving the electrical disconnect. And we'll go ahead and, uh, set the compliance date at 30 days out. That'll be June 26th, 2026 with a $50 per day fine beginning to run on June the 27th. If compliance has not been timely achieved, uh, is there anything else the city needs on this case? No, sir. All right. Your honor, our next case will be fire 0302026. That's also going to be 1240 Providence Boulevard suite three. Good evening, your honor. I am fire. I am fire safety inspector Lisa Nadeau. This is case fire dash 030 dash 2026 1240 Providence Boulevard suite three. The city of Deltona versus Tule corporation parcel ID number is 813 dash 0 0 5 dash 4 7 0 dash 4 2 0. This is a violation of chapter 42 article 4 fire codes chapter 42 1 dash 186, which adopts the most recent addition of the Florida fire prevention code as adopted by the state fire marshal for the following violations. Please note violations C D and E have come into compliance prior to this hearing. violation a extent or chapter or NFPA one, sorry chapter 11.1.5.1 extension cords shall be plugged directly into an approved re extension cords shall be plugged directly into an approved receptacle power tap or multi-plug adapter and shall accept for approved multi-plug extension cords serve only one portable appliance. Discontinue the corrective action would be to discontinue the use of the extension cords. the extension cord behind the front counter violation B and FPA one chapter 12.3.3.3.2 where required fire rated gypsum wall board walls or ceilings that are damaged to the extent through existing openings the damaged gypsum wall board shall be replaced or return to the required level of fire resistance. using a listed repair system or using a listed repair system or using materials and methods equivalent to the original construction. the corrective action would be to reposition the ceiling tiles to eliminate openings in the rear storage closet and the main sales floor and to replace the damaged ceiling tiles. ceiling tiles in the rear storage closet and the rear storage closet and the main sales floor and to replace the damaged ceiling tiles in the rear storage closet and the main sales floor. This case began January 14th, 2026 while conducting a fire inspection at this location where I observed the above mentioned violations amongst other violations which were resolved prior to this hearing. the property owner and tenant were notified in writing of the violations and given a timeframe to bring the said violations to current. Subsequent re-inspections on 218.26, 318.26, 48.26, 415.26 and 428.26 found no progress on the noted violations. As of today's date, the above noted violations are still non-compliant. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance at a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. Is there anyone here for the respondent? No, sir. All right. The city's exhibits and evidence at this time, based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make the finding of violation as to those two outstanding violations. That would be violation A involving the extension court behind the counter and violation B involving the damaged ceiling tiles at various locations on the premises. Your Honor, before you make your ruling, I'm sorry, this is Sharon Shivers, Fire Marshal. I just have a question that I need to have clarified by Inspector Nadeau. On the agenda, she has that violation A, there was an extension cord being used behind the front counter and the rear storage room. The rear storage room has been removed. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. So, just to be clear then, with regard to violation A, we're just dealing with one extension cord behind the front counter. Yes, sir. And then violation B is several, a number of damaged ceiling tiles at various locations on the premises. Yes. Go ahead and set the compliance date to June 26, as recommended, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a $50 per day fine per violation as to either or both of those violations that might remain after that date. Then we'd run that $50 per day fine for each violation until the property has been fully brought into compliance. Is there anything else the city is seeking on this one at this time? No, sir. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be Fire 031-2026. That's 1229 Providence Boulevard, Suite A. Good evening, Your Honor. I am Fire Safety Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This is Case Fire 031-2026, 1229 Providence Boulevard, Suite A. The City of Deltona versus Deltona Commercial Group, LLC. Parcel ID number is 813-005-060-010. This is a violation of Chapter 42, Article IV, 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. Please note that violations A, B, D, E, F, G, and H have come into compliance prior to this hearing. Violation C, NFPA 1, Chapter 13.1.1. The AHJ shall have the authority to require that construction documents for all fire protection systems be submitted for review and approval and a permit be issued prior to the installation, rehabilitation, or modification. Further, the AHJ shall have the authority to require that full acceptance tests of the systems be performed in the AHJ's presence prior to final system certification. Corrective action is to obtain a permit or issued permit for the installation of the fixed fire suppression nozzles, additional fixed suppression bottle, and relocated pull station, and to contact our office with the permit number once it has been obtained. This case began December 30, 2025, while conducting a fire inspection at this location, where I observed the above-mentioned violation, amongst other violations which were resolved prior to this hearing. The property manager and tenant was notified in writing of the violation and given a timeframe to correct said violation. Subsequent re-inspections on March 3, 2026, March 31, 2026, April 14, 2026, April 22, 2026, and May 8, 2026 found no progress on the noted violation. As of today's date, the above-noted violation is still noncompliant. However, on March 30, 2026, a permit was applied for and is pending a resubmittal to complete the plan review. The city would like to request 45 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, very good. So, is there anyone here for the respondent? Yes, sir. All right. Brenda Montgomery. I'm the property manager for the property. All right. Were you sworn previously? Yes. Did you have any, is it Montgomery, did you say? That is correct. And did you have any questions for the fire safety inspector? Nope. We're good pals. All right. Well, you did get a lot of these violations taken care of. Yes. And the property was a hot mess until I took over. So, we're trying. All right. Hopefully, this is the last one. Well, no, I have another one, but it's not fire. All right. Do you have anything else you want to say about the remaining violation? No, thank you. All right. All right. So, I'll receive the city's exhibits into evidence at this time based on the exhibits and the testimony. I'll make a finding violation as to the one remaining violation, which is violation C, as stated in the notice. The city is asking for a compliance date at 45 days out. That would be Monday, July the 13th of this year. So, we'll set that as the compliance date. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'd start running a $50 per day fine on July the 14th and run that fine until this property has been brought fully into compliance. Is there anything else that the city is seeking in this case? No, sir. All right. Do you have any questions, Ms. Montgomery? No. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. You're free to go. Good luck. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 25054. That's A through C, and that's 916 Shortcrest Avenue, and it's for a reduction. Your Honor. So, this is a request for a reduction of the lien? Correct. Okay. Go ahead. Hello? Yes. My name is Bashir Turksey. I'm a code compliance officer with the city of Deltona. The property address is 916 Shortcrest Avenue, Deltona, Florida 32725. Parcel number is 8130-411. 8130-4101-0180. Property owner is Shamra R. Taylor. This will be a hearing for a fine reduction request. This hearing will be covering cases DEL 2554A, B, and C. These cases were opened in February 11th, 2025 for construction work at this property without a permit. Following the special magistrate's order, the property has accrued the following fines for noncompliance. Case number DEL 2554A for shed without a permit, the property remained in violation for a total of 161 days after the special magistrate order and has accrued a total of $8,050. Case number DEL 2554B for the pergola without a permit, the property remained in violation for 219 days after special magistrate order and has accrued a total of $10,950. The current total fines for all three cases is $27,050. City investments costs. The city's operational cost per case is $2,493.56, reflecting the administrative and operational expenses incurred by the city, including but not limited to code officer hours, administrative staff processing time, and city's vehicle time. The total city investment cost for all three cases is $7,480.68. As far as the recommendations, the city does not have any recommendations at this time and requests full recovery of the $27,050 in outstanding fines owed by the property owner. Very good. Officer, anything else? That would be all, sir. And just, I'll have to pull the city's ordinance on this, but just, if you would, quickly tell me, is the special magistrate's, does the special magistrate have final order authority on these reduction requests, or does the special magistrate make a recommendation to the county commission? Correct. Yes, the special magistrate does make a recommendation. The final decision is taken by the commission. All right, and are there any, in terms of the recommendation, are there any floors, or, I mean, obviously the city wouldn't have to look at the ordinance, but costs aren't adjusted. Are there any other parameters on the reduction as far as the fines go, any percentages or anything like that that I need to be aware of? No, as far as the standard operating procedures for the city, we do not make any recommendations. Okay, all right, very good. Let me hear from, do I have Ms. Taylor? Yes. Go ahead. I mean, it's been a very long process, like I've said, than the last time I was here. I mean, we went through several different contractors trying to get people to just show up for months. I don't know because it's just a small job, but, I mean, and then I find out the pergola is, you know, too big, and that's why I needed engineer drawings for that. And then I would go into the permitting office, and I would speak to a different person every time, and one person would say something, this, that I needed. And then I would get it, come back with the plans, and they'd be like, nope, we need, the different person would say I needed this. So I'd have to, it was back and forth probably a good 10 times, and it took a long time. And in the meantime, we finally get a contractor, and they tell us it's going to be $19,000 to fix everything. So I don't have an extra $20,000 laying around, so it's something that we had to save money for to fix the issue. So that's why it took so long. All right, I'm just looking through the materials I've got here in the file. You have submitted a request for the hearing, and you've handwritten and attached, like, a sheet here with an explanation. Is there any other evidence that you want to present? No, I, everything that I submitted is, I mean, that's the invoice that what we paid, and I don't really have anything else. Let me see if I have that. Oh, hold on, maybe I do. Give me a second here. Just want to see what I have. I see that. So you've mentioned, you know, financial hardship or the cost of compliance. Is there anything else that you want me to consider, any other factors, any other facts and circumstances? That, I mean, we had to save the money to do that. I mean, the person who did the shed, you know, told us that they were taking care of the permit situation, and they didn't, and getting a hold of them. And we finally just had to save, screw it, like, screw it, sorry, by my language. But we had to find, do it ourselves, and they weren't going to do anything about it. So it just, it's just been a, truly a nightmare, and I just want it to be over with. But we can't afford to pay $27,000 again, because it's going to take however long to save that much money up. Like, it's just, it just says, that seems unfair. So, again, just looking at the case, I wasn't going to have heard the underlying case. You had the pergola without, was built without a permit, a shed without a permit, and then the slab for the shed? Yes. I guess a driveway, maybe? Okay. All that work was done without permits, and then you, eventually you got after-the-fact permits? Yes. And you're saying that took a long time? Yes. Finding somebody to show up and do what we needed, and back and forth with the engineer and what we needed for the pergola, and it all costs a lot of money. Who built all these structures in the first place? Um, I, I think the, Jose's Metalworks is who did the building, the pergola, it was somebody that my boyfriend had hired, I'm not sure the name of that person. All right, you had somebody come out and do it, and they just didn't pull the permits. What is it? You had, somebody came out and did the work, you didn't do it yourself, somebody did the work and they did not pull the permits. All right, Ms. Taylor, any, anything else? Um, no, I don't believe so. You had any prior violations on the property? Yes, sir. All right, prior code violations? Correct. What's the, what was the violation history? Uh, I'm sorry? What, what's the violation history? There were prior code violations? It's mainly, mainly parking violations. Okay. Uh, parking, what, vehicles on the property that shouldn't be there? Commercial, yes, commercial vehicles on the property and. Okay. All right. Is there anything you wanted to say about that, Ms. Taylor? Oh, about the past violation? Right. I mean, one of the factors to consider is previous violations. I mean, uh. Oh, um, I'm assuming, I'm assuming that's for, I mean, his, sometimes he, my boyfriend, he has, he has a, he has a work truck that he parks in that he would have to park in front of the house because there's a, there's a dumpster attached to it. I mean, it's always moved relatively, like, the next day usually. That's, I mean, it's never there long term at all. All right. So, let me ask you this, um, yeah, what, uh, relief are you requesting? Obviously, you want a reduction. What do you think the reduction should be to? A significant amount, I hope, because, I mean, like I said, it, it took a lot of saving for us to afford to do the changes. Um, I, I mean, I don't know what you guys typically do in this situation. Like, what, what percentages do you offer in reducing them? Well, that, that, that depends on a number of factors. But, uh, um, I'm just, like, curious in terms of getting a sense of what relief you're looking for to get something more specific. I think I, I'm pretty sure I wrote a number down. I don't know if you have that paper that I had written down what we were, we were requesting. I just don't have it on me, so I can't give you the number. Oh, okay. So, you're, you're, uh, seeking a reduction essentially of 95% to $402.50? Yes. All right. Um, all right. Anything else? Does the city have anything else on this one? No, no further questions. All right. Ms. Taylor, on, uh, lien reduction requests, uh, I, I always take those under advisement so I can take a little bit of time to look at all the facts and the underlying case with a little more care and detail than I can typically do during the course of the hearing. Uh, and so I can go back and balance all those facts and circumstances against the statutory factors and make a decision as to what, uh, what I think is, uh, an equitable, uh, uh, adjustment of the fine if, uh, if an adjustment should be made. Uh, so, uh, I will do that in this instance and, uh, we'll get an order out to you in the relatively near future. Uh, which, uh, which will be sent to you in writing. Okay. Thank you. Magistrate. Magistrate. Yes. This is Todd, uh, co-compliance supervisor. Uh, I know the, uh, viola had submitted in her request for this fine reduction. It was 5% per each violation she had. So that was her, her, her, her recommended, uh, payment or requested to reduce it to 5% of what the, each violation total was. So I think it was, uh, roughly around $1,300 they were suggesting that they could pay. Okay. It was four, 405, 405, and then 510, something, something, something, something in and around that $1,300 value. I see that, I see that now, because I, I'm, each one of the, uh, A, B, and C each has its own, its own package. I see that. I appreciate that correction. All right. All right. Well, thanks for coming in, Ms. Taylor, and you're free to go. I think that's all that we have, Your Honor. That's all? Let's see. I guess we did, because we checked a few out. All right. Is there any other business to attend to before we adjourn? No, sir. We can, we're good. We appreciate it. All right. If you, uh, yeah, I can, I'll turn these around fairly quickly. If you post up some draft orders for me, if you can put them in Word format, that would be appreciated. And, uh, also, since I haven't done a lien reduction for, uh, for Deltona, um, I can write that one up from scratch. But if you can, uh, uh, perhaps, uh, uh, post up, uh, uh, uh, an example of some, uh, a previous order so I can see the form of format that, uh, that your commissioners are used to seeing in those cases. So I can, uh, produce a, an order that fits the, you know, the style that you're accustomed to seeing. I'll do that. Understood. We'll do that. All right. Very good. Well, uh, with that, uh, we will be adjourned and I will see you next month. All right. Good evening, sir. Have a good day. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.