Deltona, Special Magistrate Agenda for Wednesday, June 24, 2026. We're getting underway. It's scheduled at 5.30 p.m. My name is John Van Lanningham. I am the City's Special Magistrate for Code Compliance. I'll be conducting tonight's hearings. We do have a few preliminary matters to attend to before we begin calling cases. Let me start with taking the role of the officers who are here this evening. If you would please identify yourselves. Daniel Rahn, Code Compliance Manager. Sam Schaller, Assistant Fire Marshal. Lisa Nadeau, Fire Inspector. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Tyler Russell, Customer Service. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Admin Supervisor. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Todd Mead, Code Compliance Supervisor. Tom Ruddy, Code Compliance Officer. Enrique Rios, Code Compliance Officer. That is all, sir. All right. All right. Very good. 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. Thank you. You may be seated. At this time, let me state for the record that I, as a special magistrate, have had no communication with anyone regarding the substance or the merits of any of the cases that we're hearing this evening. The only communications I've had with the City of Concern, the getting access to the files and making sure they're online for my availability. As far as the minutes from the last meeting of Concern, are there any objections to approval of those? No objection. Let me see. Make sure I have them. So, I have the final minutes from the May 27, 2026 meeting, hearing no objections through those minutes. And, at this time, are there any other announcements that should be placed upon the record? Yes, sir. All right. Your Honor, we'd like to withdraw case fire 033-2026. That's 1251 Providence Boulevard. All right. We'd like to also withdraw fire 037-2026, and that'll be 1200 Deltona Boulevard. And, we'd like to also continue case DEL-26-035, 789 Chippendale Street. All right. So, that's one month continuance on that one? Yes, Your Honor. Very good. Any other announcements for the record? No, sir. All right. Let me go ahead, then, and we'll swear in all of the officers and witnesses present who are expected to give testimony in any of today's hearings. If all of you would please raise your right hands for me, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Will do. All right. And, that concludes the preliminary items on this agenda. We can begin calling the cases. Okay, Your Honor, our first case will be DEL-26-033, and that'll be 562 Fort Smith Boulevard. And, let's pull this up here. All right. Do we have anyone here on behalf of the respondent? Yes. Jessica? I'm Jessica Pena, also known as Jessica Hernandez. All right. You go by Hernandez? Yeah, my married name is Hernandez. My maiden name is Pena. All right. We have Pena in the caption. Yes. All right. Very good. Let me hear from the city first. If you have any questions for the officers, you'll have a chance to ask them, and then we'll come back to you for your side, okay? Okay. All right. Let me hear from the city first. Good evening, Your Honor. I have co-compliance officer Enrique Rios, City of Deltona, versus Jessica Pena. Parcel ID for this property is 813-041-290-120. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 66-18H, which states a maximum of three vehicles may be parked in the side or rear yards. Corrective action for said violation is to reduce the number of vehicles in the side or rear yard to a maximum of three vehicles. This case originated from a case created on April 10th, 2026, after a code administration received a report for a resident living out of an RV at the property. Upon investigation, the report was inconclusive, and the case was closed. After subsequent report for a vehicle violation at the property on April 24th, 2026, a citation was issued. On May 16th, 2026, vehicle violations remained on the property. An internal NOV was issued or a notice of violation was issued and sent certified mail. Following conversations with residents Kayla and Josh, the tenants revealing that conversation revealed family circumstances. And after review of the case, corrective action and progression on the property, the case was escalated here. This property has come into compliance as of today and as reflected by today's inspection with the residents, for the residents. But the city would like to request this as an initial hearing and for it to be considered a repeat should this violation occur again. All right. City said at this time then seeking a finding of violation with at this time without the imposition of prospective fines because we're currently in compliance. Correct. Okay. All right. Mr. Hernandez, do you have any questions for the code officer? I don't have any questions. I have my husband here with me. I want to see if he has any questions. Is that okay? Go ahead. Magistrate, how are you? William Hernandez. I have no questions for the officer. All right. So I'll receive the city's exhibits in evidence. And at this time, Mr. Hernandez, do you have any evidence, testimony that you would like to give? Well, I'll let my husband speak. Magistrate, yes. We actually have my brother, Joshua Hernandez and Kayla Hernandez. They should be there with the documentation to show that we did purchase the rocks to expand the driveway to be in compliance. Just additional note, one of the issues we've been having is we do have a relative who is currently receiving hospice care at the home. And that was the reason for the influx of vehicles, family members paying their last respect, as well as visiting nurses who come daily to attend to his needs, as well as to change them and care for him. And due to those reasons, one of the reasons why we have some vehicles in the yard. But we have removed those vehicles, and we are attempting to be in full compliance moving forward. Right. And as you heard from the city, from the officer, the property is currently in compliance. So the city is not seeking a fine or a compliance date since you're currently not in violation. Okay. What the city is asking is that I make a finding that you were in violation based on the testimony and the exhibits, so that if this were to happen again, the matter would be reviewed as a repeat offense. In other words, there could potentially be greater consequences if this particular violation were to happen again in the future. Understood. Is there a time frame for that that's an indefinite time frame, or is that within a specified time frame? Well, I'd have to actually look at the order. Does the city have a quick answer to that? I don't have the ordinance in front of me. Is there a limitations period on what a repeat offense? It would be indefinite as long as the same owner at the property. Okay. Understood. All right. All right. Well, very good. Based on the – is there anything else, Mr. or Mrs. Hernandez, that you would like to say? No. All right. Does the city have anything else? No, Your Honor. All right. So I will then make a finding of violation based on the grade where the evidence presented that establishes there was a violation here with the excess vehicles parked in the side or rear yards. That violation has been brought to – or has been corrected. So while the order will find the violation, there will not be a compliance date or a coercive prospective fine. But as indicated, if this were to occur again, the matter would be deemed or could be deemed a repeat offense with potentially strict penalties. Does the city need anything else on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Go ahead. I didn't mean to cut you off there. Thank you. Do you have any questions, Mr. Hernandez? Mr. Hernandez? No. No questions. All right. Well, thanks for coming in. You all are free to go. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26022. That will be 2901 Sixma Road. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? Nobody's present. And you may proceed. I am Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona versus Jason Holdings, LLC. The parcel ID number is 813-053-000050. It was ruled on April 22nd, 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 $50 per day since May 23rd, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $1,650 over 33 days. The city requests the fine continue at $50 per day until the property has been brought into compliance and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. Very good. I will receive the city's exhibits in evidence, and based on that testimony and the exhibits, including the prior order of fining the violation, I will go ahead and will enter an order imposing lien, or fine and lien in this case with the accrued fine of $1,650, continuing to accrue at $50 per day until this violation is brought fully into compliance. So that the daily fine will continue to run. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, there is not. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yeah. And our next case will be DEL 26032 Alpha and Bravo, I guess, suite A&B. 1630 West Way Cross Circle. Give me one second. Accidentally closed. 26032 A&B. All right. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. All right. You may proceed. I'm bringing this case in for the officer that worked the case, Officer Janice Palosik. I am Code Compliance Officer Todd Mead. This is the City of Deltona v. Oregon LLC. Partial ID number is 813-055-010-050. This property has two violations. Violation A is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code, Section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for violation A is to obtain a permit for the carport conversion. Violation B. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 304.1, which states the exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound, and sanitary so as not to pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Corrective action for violation B is to repair, replace, or maintain in good repair any exterior surfaces, roof, and soffits, et cetera, in this case. Obtain the required permits if required. Violation A. This case was open for a carport that had been closed off with plywood and a window installed. Property appeared to be vacant, and a notice violation was posted on the front door on June 8th of 2026. Notice for hearing was posted to the front door. As of today, June 24th, 2026, the property still remains in violation. The carport is now cemented over and painted. No permit is on file for the conversion. Violation B. This case was open for a roof and disrepair. A tarp was on the roof, and the soffits were missing in places. Property appeared to be vacant, and a notice violation was posted to the front door. On June 8th of 2026, notice a hearing was posted. As of today, June 24th, 2026, the property is still in violation. The tarp has been removed from the roof. However, there are soffits still missing on the front and side of the house. The city requests 30 days for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $250 per day for the no permit case A and $100 per day for the roof and disrepair case violation B past the aforementioned date. All right. Very good. At this time, I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence, and I will make a finding of violation as to the two charges stated in the notice of violation, violation A and violation B. With regard to those violations, we're going to set a compliance date at 30 days out, and that will be Friday, July 24th, 2026. If compliance is not achieved as to either or both counts by that date, fines, daily fines will begin to run in the amount of $250 per day for violation A and $100 per day for violation B for a cumulative total of $350 per day should both violations remain out of compliance on the compliance date. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26034. That's 1570 Curiton Street. Do we have anyone here for the property, Your Honor? No, Your Honor. All right. You may proceed. I'm reading this case in for Officer Janice Pelosic. She worked the case, investigating the officer on it. I am Code Compliance Officer Todd Mead. This is the city of Deltona versus Charlene M. Williams. The parcel ID number is 813-011-220-090. This is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 304.1, which states the exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound, and sanitary so as not to pose a threat to the public, health, safety, or welfare. Corrective action for said violation is to repair, replace, or maintain in good repair any exterior surface, in this case the roof. Obtain permits if required. This case began on October 7, 2025, by former code-offs for a roof and disrepair. Contact was made with the property owner, who stated they were in contact with the insurance company to have the roof repaired due to hurricane damage. A notice violation was posted on the property on October 14, 2025. On June 8, 2026, a notice hearing was then posted to the garage door. As of today, June 24, 2026, the roof is still in disrepair. So, no permits have been applied for doing the re-roof. The city requests 30 days for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $100 per day past the aforementioned time period. All right, very good. So, I will, at this time, receive the city's exhibits in evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'm like the finding, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that the violation alleged has been established, that is the failure to maintain the roof in good repair. We'll set a compliance date as recommended to 30 days out. That will be Friday, July 24. If compliance is not achieved by that date, starting on the next day, the 25th of July, a daily fine of $100, we'll begin to run on that $100 per day penalty. We'll continue until the property has been deemed compliance. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Okay, Your Honor. Our next case will be DEL 26036. That's 2293 East Dana Drive. Do we have property owner here? No, Your Honor. All right. You may proceed. I am Co-Compliance Officer Todd Mead. This is City of Deltona v. Rubin Espinosa. The parcel ID number is 813-074-240-250. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, which states that any owner, authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The check of action for said violation is to obtain the permit for the shed. The application must be submitted to the City of Deltona, 2345 Providence Boulevard. The structure must meet all requirements of the City ordinance and be approved on final inspection. Contact the office with the permit number has been obtained. This case began on October 7th of 2025 when I noticed a shed on the property. There was no permit on record within City files. I provided a door hanger notice for the homeowner to obtain a permit. The notice of violation was posted on December 16th of 2025. At this time, the homeowner has not applied for a permit as of today. The City requests 30 days for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $250 per day past the aforementioned date. All right. Very good. I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence. And based on the testimony and the exhibits, I will make a finding of violation with regard to the charge stated in the notice, namely the unpermitted shed that is standing on, has been erected on the property. We'll set the compliance date for this violation to 30 days out. That will be Friday, July 24th. If compliance is not achieved by that date and the violation continues, a fine of $250 per day will begin to run on July 25th. And that fine will continue to accrue until the date the property is deemed to have come into compliance. Is there anything else the City needs on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Very good. Your Honor, our next case will be Fire 032-2026. That's 1251 Providence Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. Anyone here for the property, Your Honor? No, sir. All right. You may proceed. I am Fire Safety Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This is Code, this is Case Fire-032-2026, 1251 Providence Boulevard, Suite 100. The City of Deltona versus Obsidian ML8 LLC. Parcel ID is 813-201-010-050. 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. Please note, violation A has come into compliance prior to this hearing. All right. Violation B, NFPA 1, Chapter 1.7.12.10. No construction work shall proceed until the AHJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable permits have been issued, with the applicable permit has been issued. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for the construction of the storage closet on the main floor or remove the closet and bring the main floor back to its original condition. This case began January 7, 2026, while conducting a fire inspection at this location, where I observed the above-mentioned violation, along with another violation which was resolved prior to this hearing. The property owner and tenant was notified in writing of the violation and given a time frame to correct said violation. Subsequent re-inspections were conducted on February 18, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 9, 2026, April 16, 2026, May 8, 2026, and May 27, 2026, and found no progress had been made. As of today's date, the above-noted violation is still noncompliant. The city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $50 per day until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance. All right. And I will, at this time, receive the city's exhibits in evidence, and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make a finding of violation as to violation B of the notice of violation, violation A, haven't come into compliance. And we'll set the compliance date at 30 days out. That'll be Friday, July 24th, for the correction of violation B. If that violation has not been corrected by that date, a daily fine of $50, $50 per day will begin to run on July 25th and will continue to run until this property has been brought fully into compliance with the issuance of a proper permit for the storage closet or the removal of that closet and the restoration of the main floor to its original condition. Is there anything else the city is seeking in this one? No, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Your Honor. Our next case will be fire 036-2026. That's 1049 East Normandy Boulevard. Evening, Your Honor. Good evening. Anyone here for the property owner? I believe so. Let me know who's here for the responding. Sorry, Joseph Kornick. Joseph, can you say your last name again, please? Kornick. What is that? Can you spell it? C-O-R-N-E-C-K. Oh, like it sounds. All right. And what's your connection, Mr. Kornick, with the women's club? We've obtained the property about 10 days ago to help the women's club stay afloat. But we did not know about this violation. And I'm doing corrective action as we speak. You say you obtained it, but you mean you purchased the property? We purchased the property 10 days ago. All right. Who is we? Is that a... George Travato, attorney-in-law, Orange City. All right. Well, let me hear from the city, Mr. Kornick. And then if you have any questions for the inspector, you'll have a chance to ask them. And after that, you'll have a chance to testify or present any evidence that you have as well. Okay? Yes. All right. Let me hear from the inspector. Recker. My name is Samuel Schall. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as the assistant fire marshal. This will be the city of Deltona versus Deltona Women's Club, Inc. Parcel ID number is 813-005-13-0010. Violation of city of Deltona ordinance chapter 42, article 4, fire codes, section 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the state fire marshal. In specific, Florida edition of NFPA 1, chapter 50.2.1.3.1, which states maintenance and repairs shall be performed in all components at intervals necessary to maintain good working condition. NFPA 96, chapter 8.1.2.1 states upblast vans with motors surrounded by the airstream shall be hinged and supplied with flexible weatherproof electrical cable and service hold-up and retainers. A corrective action for said violations is to install a hinge kit on your kitchen exhaust hood and to contact your kitchen exhaust hood service provider to repair the deficiencies that were outlined in the November 17, 2025 service report. This case began on February 23, 2026, during a follow-up to an earlier fire inspection to conduct this location. Our office received a report dated November 17, 2024, from Summit Fire and Safety, which is a fixed fire suppression contractor. It stated that the kitchen exhaust hood was missing a hinge kit, which is a device that's needed to be able to lift the hood up and clean the grease off the bottom of the fan. There are numerous deficiencies with the fixed fire suppression system. The alarm bell did not activate, make-up air didn't shut down, and the exhaust interlock with the activation of the fixed suppression system failed. Property was notified of the deficiencies, given time to comply. Follow-up inspections on April 10, April 24, and May 6 of this year, found no progress. Notice the violation was posted on the property on May 7, 2026. Follow-up was conducted on May 21, 2026. No progress was found in violations. Notice the hearing was posted on the property on June 9, 2026. Today's date, there's been no progress on the violations. City would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance, or if the property stays out of compliance past that aforementioned date, a fine of $50 per day per violation to be imposed. Oh, very good. So I will receive the city's exhibits and evidence, and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make a finding violation. As to violation B of the notice of violation, violation A having come into compliance, we'll set a compliance date as recommended to 30 days out to Friday, July 24, 2026. If compliance has not been achieved by that date, we'll start to run a daily fine of $50 per day, which will run from July 25th and continue to accrue until the property has been brought fully into compliance. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be— We're done? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, guys. Oh, hold on. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We fired—we got a whole new hood company. They didn't do their job. Yeah, I was going to—I'm sorry, Your Honor. I was going to ask if the property owner would be allowed to speak his part, too. Yeah, let me back up. I'm so sorry. We got too excited. I was—I'm good. I know exactly what we need to do. We did fire Summit. They did not do their job, and everything was out of compliance. We said we went over today. I did hire a new contractor out of Sanford United. You guys should know them. Anyway, we're going to—I was expecting to have actually a quote tonight with me. Didn't get it to show you that we were moving forward with this. So 30 days should be enough. Like I said, we just obtained it 10 days ago, and I got this three days ago. So it's like, oh, okay, no big deal. So we'll take care of it. We'll take care of it. That's it. And you have— All right, Mr.—go ahead. I was just going to make sure you had Inspector Bailey's contact. Yes, in fact— Just someone to send everything to. Yeah, and in fact, Inspector Bailey and I did meet at the property. I was expecting to see him here tonight. He's awesome. We met—I hope he's okay. I hope—we met, and we went over this. He says, just show up, take care of this, and I think everything will be just fine within 30 days. Okay? Appreciate you coming. All right, man. All right. Mr. Kornick. Yeah. Mr. Kornick. Okay, good. Take care. Mr. Kornick. Sorry. Is he going? Okay. No, I didn't go nowhere yet. I'm sorry. You're on. Yeah, I just wanted to apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off. I literally forgot you were there. You're kind of off camera. I've got the notes here that you're there, and I just forgot, but that's why I apologize for that, and I do want to give you the opportunity, if there's anything else you want to say or any question that you had about the ruling. Oh, no. Not at all. We'll have it taken care of. All right. Thanks for coming in. You're free to go. Again, I'm sorry about that. All right, everybody. I'm thinking you, too. Okay. Next case will be Fire 038-2026. That's 1240 East Normandy Boulevard. You need me again, Your Honor. On the record, my name is Assistant Fire Marshal Sam Schaller. This will be the City of Deltona v. Carolina Cleaning and Roberto Renovations, LLC. Parcel ID number is 813-201-010030. Violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Section 42-186, which adopts the most recent addition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by State Fire Marshal. In specific, Florida edition of NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 1.7.12.10, states no construction work shall proceed to the authority of jurisdictions, reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards, and the applicable permits have been issued. Corrective action for said violations is to obtain an issued building permit for the work conducted in Suite 100 to include the new walls and electrical. This case began on November 13, 2024. While conducting a fire safety inspection at this location, Fire Inspector Lisa Nadeau observed new interior walls that were constructed, along with new electrical receptacles installed in them, and some existing walls that had been removed. Upon research, no permit had been issued for the interior alterations in the electrical work. Owner was notified of the violation and given time to comply. Re-inspections conducted on January 3, March 5, and March 26, 2025 all found the work in place. Actually, correct myself, found more work continuing to be conducted with no permit issued. At the time, Case Fire 013, 2025 was opened. Notice of violation was posted on the property on April 10, 2025. April 16, 2025, permit was issued for the alterations, and therefore, we went ahead and closed our open code case on the property. The permit then expired on September 24, 2025, due to no inspections ever being conducted. Building official did renew the permit on the condition that an inspection would be called in. A framing and electrical rough-in and electrical final inspection was conducted by a building official on November 13, 2025, with a partial pass for the electrical final pending corrections that needed to be made. The permit then expired yet again with no passing inspections on April 22, 2026. Property owner and contractor were notified of the expired permit and the action needed. There's been no communication from the building owner with our office related to this case for approximately a year now. Therefore, we went ahead and posted a new violation on May 22. No progress was made on renewing the permit. So, June 9, we posted the notice of hearing, and then as of today's date, there has still been no progress on having that permit reopened or getting a new permit to, you know, account for the work that was done. So, in closing, the city requests 30 days for the property to come into compliance or fine of $50 per day past the aforementioned date. Excuse me. Very good. I will see. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. I do not see them. All right. So, I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits I'll find by the greater weight of the evidence of the violation. Charged in the notice has been established. The construction work without a benefit of permit or a finalized permit and permits that have expired without passing final inspections. We'll set the compliance date to 30 days out to July 24, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a fine of $50 per day, and that will start on July 25th. And that will continue to run daily at $50 per day until compliance has been achieved. Is there anything else the city is looking for in this case? No, Your Honor. All right. Okay, Your Honor. Case number under other business, case number DEL 15091-3254-Agar Terrace, firing reduction. Firing reduction, I'm sorry. Your Honor, I think the case number, just so the record's accurate, is DEL 15-191. Is that what the gentleman? 091. That's one of the cases. 1-9-1. There's two cases. I got 0-9-1. There are two cases that are similar. It is 1-9-1. There are two cases. So there's 1-9-1 and 20-0-8-3. Is that what it is? Yes, Your Honor. I'm Michael Moore. I'm here on behalf of Wesley Wainwright, who's the applicant, and he's here with me. And we're here with Todd Mead. Okay. Let me just get, just to kind of set the stage here. We've got a request for a reduction of lien in two separate cases involving the same property? Correct. The same owner? Correct. And are we going to take them up one at a time? Are they separate? We've made them a cumulative total, so we're looking at it as one, the total of the two, but that's the way I'm going to read them in both together. Okay. They're two old cases, but with the DEL numbers, it should be under one number, a reduction. Okay. Let me do this. Let me get the attorney's name again. Sorry, I didn't quite catch it there. The attorney for the property owner? Yes, Judge. I didn't understand your question. I'm sorry. I was just asking for your name again. I missed your last name. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Michael Moore, M-O-O-R-E, and prior June 10, we had submitted two requests for hearing and lien reduction, actually amended requests for hearing and lien reductions, one in case DEL15-191, and then a very similar amended request for hearing and lien reduction in case number DEL20083. At the appropriate time, we would ask, Your Honor, to admit the amended request for hearing and the attachments thereto and to evidence. All right. All right. Let me do this. In cases of this kind, my authority is to make a recommendation to the commissioner. So, let me get an overview from Officer Mead, and then I'll come back to you, Mr. Moore, for the presentation of the grounds asserted for the reductions. Usually, the applicant in these cases, I guess, a little bit more time because you're putting on the presentation. But let me hear from the city first and kind of get oriented to these cases. They're before my time with the city. So, let me get a sense of what's going on, and then we'll come back to you for the presentation. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Good. And you may go ahead, Officer. I'm reading the case DEL20-183 was worked by Officer Jeff Scott, reading that case in for him. And then the DEL15-191 was prior to that. I do not have the officer that worked that case, but I will be reading in to the fine reduction. I am Co-Compliance Officer Todd Mead. The property owner is Delana Wainwright, 813-035-040-110. Property address is 3254 Agar Terrace, Deltona, Florida, 32738. This will be hearing for a fine reduction request. This hearing will be covering cases DEL20-183 and DEL15-191. Your Honor, again, those numbers. Let's get on the same page here. Somebody help us over there at the table. I have two different cases. I have DEL15-191 and DEL20-083. Am I inaccurate about that? I'm looking here. I have the typo in my... I heard 183, and I don't think that's right. I don't know if it matters, but these are things we can agree to. Yeah, I have 20-083 and 15-191. Okay. Same typo, so I'll read that in. This case will be hearing covering cases DEL20-083 and DEL15-191. Amen. These cases were opened on 7-22-2020 for the screen enclosure and 5-13-2015 for the shed at this property without a permit. The following special magistrate's order, the property has accrued the following fines for noncompliance. Case number DEL20-083, for screen enclosure without a permit, the property remained in violation for 2,045 days after the special magistrate order and has accrued a total of $102,250 fine. Case number DEL15-191, for the shed without a permit, the property remained in violation for 3,902 days after the special magistrate order and has reached a cap amount of $10,000. The current total fine for both cases is $112,250. The city's operational cost for DEL20-083 is $1,876.78, and DEL15-191 is $1,836.78, reflecting the administrative and operational expenses incurred by the city during, but not limited to, code officer hours, administrative staff processing time, and city's vehicle time. The total city investment cost for both cases is $3,713.56. Recommendation for the city. The city does not have any recommendations at this time and requests full recovery of the $112,250. Motion at your stick-up cam. I'm sorry. You don't hear something? I'm sorry, that was... Just turn this off. Excuse me. The city does not have any recommendations at this time and requests full recovery of the $112,250 in outstanding fines owned by the property owner. This concludes the city's presentation. All right. Mr. Morty, do you have any questions for the officer? I do. Could I ask him to tell us what those costs were again? And so this is what I have. In 20083, I thought I heard him say $1,876.78. Is that accurate? $1,876.78. $1,876.78. And then in $1,5191, I thought I heard you say $1,836. I'm sorry. $1,836.78? $1,878. Correct. Okay. Okay. And the total... Tell us the total again, sir. Total was $3,713.56. Okay. And you're aware that he's offered to pay. Well, I know it doesn't quite match up because he didn't have those costs. Okay. Well, we're ready to move forward. Your Honor. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mead. And we had submitted a request. As Mr. Mead had started off, he said that these liens were originally brought and the code enforcement actions were originally brought against the Lena Wainwright. That is Wesley Wainwright's mother. She was the prior owner. In December of 2025, she's quite elderly now. She's 86. She has memory issues. We thought about bringing her. She would do us no good here today, respectfully. She just suffers from memory loss and memory issues, and she has been on the decline for quite some time. Unfortunately, her son Wesley, who's with me today, and he is the current owner, he was unaware of that. And they have a family culture where the siblings don't really dwell into the affairs of the parents. And Delena Wainwright, who bought this property when she was 72, about 14 years ago, she had limited education. She relied upon her husband, who was a firefighter. He was the interface with the outside world. He was a very strong man, like most firefighters are. And he was her everything. And he passed away before she bought this property, so she was all alone when she bought the property. She didn't understand, you know, what she doesn't understand today what code enforcement action is or what these government actions were required and were here to do. She had a shed installed in the backyard. We don't know who it was, but it's a pretty together shed, and they should have, the shed installer should have obtained a permit. She relied upon the shed installer to get a permit. He didn't get a permit. That exposed her, and she didn't know what to do. Wesley was unaware of all of this happening at the time for the past 12 years, and he just didn't understand what she was doing. And I could say the same thing about the case 20-083, which involves the construction of a screened-in porch. Again, she had a contractor do that for her. When I say a contractor, I don't even know if it's a licensed contractor, but it could have been a subcontractor. It could have been somebody who was unlicensed. So I don't know who that was, and neither does Wesley, and that puts us at a significant disadvantage. Here's the thing. As soon as Wesley was made aware of these violations, he went out, he got bona fide people, he applied for permits, he got the permits done, he got the drawings, he had engineered drawings, he had inspections, and he paid the permit fees. Within two weeks of finding out, he had these problems under control, and he had inspections done, and the only issue that he had to modify was that the shed was in the wrong place. So he had to have it moved, and he did. It's anchored, and there were no other violations, and he achieved final inspections on May 18, 2026. The city lien for, as you've heard, the city lien for the shed was capped at $10,000, not knowing until a few minutes ago what the city's costs were. He offered to pay, he offered to pay $1,500 in his applications. The city's lien in case DEL 20-083 for the enclosed screen porch is much higher. The representative here, Mr. Mead, said it was $102,000, I think $750 or something like that. And, again, not knowing what the city's costs were, Mr. Wainwright had offered to pay $2,500, which is a little bit more. In the first case, with the shed, what he offered to pay is actually less than. But if you look at the total, he's offered to pay $4,000. And we would request that his offers be accepted and the liens be reduced. Now, the reasons why we set forth in our explanations and our amended request for reductions, the reasons why. And we believe his mother was in ailing health and was perhaps taken advantage of to the extent that whoever installed the shed and whoever built the screen enclosure should have known well enough to go and get permits. And we don't understand why they didn't do that. And Mr. Wainwright, as soon as it was brought to his attention, he did that on his own behalf and didn't have any problems doing so. And had he known at the time, he would have done that for his mother. He just simply didn't know. She didn't have, it wasn't a part of her personality to share these types of challenges with her son. And that's true today, too. And so, with that, Your Honor, unless there are any questions of you, we would ask that, we would move that our applications for reduction be admitted into evidence. And be taken under advisement, and we would ask that you enter a recommended order authorizing or recommending, if you will, that the city reduce the liens to the amount of his offer, which in one case was actually a little bit less than what the city's hard costs are. In the other case, they're a little bit more than what the city's hard costs are. And with that, we rest, unless Your Honor has any questions. Well, I'll receive then, in evidence, the applicant's request documents, which include the sworn statements by Mr. Wainwright. Did you want to give any testimony while you're here? Unless you have questions, Your Honor, his testimony today would be consistent with what he has in our amended request for hearings. We really don't have anything additional to offer, and we stand on his mother's limited understanding of these issues. She wasn't defiant of the government. She just wasn't—didn't understand—doesn't understand these types of issues. All right. Well, I don't have any separate questions to ask. Again, I accept that Mr. Wainwright then is essentially going to stand on these sworn statements, which contained some additional details. I haven't had a chance to read everything. I haven't been skimming it here. But I just want to be sure that you have an opportunity to put on all of the grounds for reduction that you want to place into the record. And again, I haven't studied yet the applications in detail. But, you know, you're welcome to make any further comment or testimony about it if you'd like. Again, I'll leave that to you. Yeah, I didn't—it comes down to his mother. And all of these issues were—are easy to deal with. But property owners in Florida all over, you know, I mean, you saw it today. We've sat here for a litany of code enforcement cases, and there's nobody appearing on behalf of any of these people to— and presumably that's what happened to his mother. They just don't understand what the city or what governments are trying to do or trying to achieve. And, you know, they're—they should call an attorney, but, you know, they don't want to pay an attorney to offer them an opinion about what's going on and the risk that they are exposed to for not doing anything. And so that's—I know you know that. Everybody here knows that. And that's what's happened. To his credit, it took Mr. Wainwright two weeks. I'll point out that there's a document that's not into evidence, but it's a statement from Ms. Cotterman, who's with us today. And she provided a statement dated May 4, 2026, about the payoffs for these liens. And then—and that was dated May 4, 2026. And then he had—it took him two weeks. He achieved a compliance within two weeks, within 14 days, on May 18, 2026. And so, again, it's not hard. It's a shame that his mother didn't understand. You know, in fairness to her, she hired—you know, presumably a shed installer knows that he should get a permit and that the shed should be erected or installed within the setback requirements of the city of Deltona or the county, wherever it is. And then with respect to the—either the subcontractor or whoever she hired to do the porch screened-in closure, you know, it's the same—the same—the same scenario. That person should have known to get a permit. And point of fact, there's nothing wrong with the shed. There are no construction defects. And there's nothing wrong with the—with the screened enclosure. So they were—they were constructed very well. It's just that they didn't get a—they didn't get a permit. They didn't pay the permit fees. And—and that's why we're here today. So we—he regrets all of that. He regrets not getting into his mother's affairs and finding out what she was up to. He was out of state for a long period of time. He's actually—lives in Connecticut. He's down here now trying to take care of this property and sell it for his mother. She transferred it to him. And as I said, as soon as he was apprised of these issues, he took care of them in a very workman-like and expeditious manner. Let me—I do have a question or two for Mr. Wainwright, just so I've got the chronology here. As I'm looking at your sworn statement, you state your mother transferred the property to you on December 1, 2025. I'm assuming that wasn't really an arm's-linked transaction. She—she deeded the property to you, her son, I guess for whatever reasons. But I'm assuming you didn't have a regular arm's-linked transaction where you negotiated a purchase price for the property. Or maybe you did. How did that come about? So—so I think—I think that's right. Right, and he—they were trying to—he was trying to sell it, and when they were doing the title exam, he got an offer. And when they were doing the title exam and title search, these liens popped up, as they're going to do. And that—that's what triggered his attention to this. But go ahead. Did you have more? No, that's—that's it. I—your Honor, it's all—that's basically what he's saying is correct. So, what was your question—what was your question to me, though? I guess, well, Mr. Moore kind of wrapped the next question into it, which is, you also state you found out about the violations in early May of 2026. So, you know, about five months or so after the property was transferred to you. I just wanted to get a better sense of how you discovered the liens, and I guess it was through title. Title search. And I guess those searches were done in connection with the potential sale of the property that you—by you. Yes. So, when the property transferred to you, I guess there probably—was there title work done, or did your mother just transfer the property? That's what I was kind of getting at the first question. It was a quick claim. Quick claim deed. So, you—you didn't go through a title company or anything like that. It wasn't like you were having an arms-like transaction. She quick claimed the property to you. You took over then, tried to sell it, and in that—in that course of events, discovered the liens, which, of course, would pop up in a title search. Yes, sir. I mean, if they did a title search with the quick claim, I would have knew then and took care of it, so. Right. So, if I understand correctly, your testimony is that until the title search revealed the existence of the liens in connection with the potential sale of the property by you, you had no idea that the liens existed. Yes, sir. And I take it you had no involvement in the original construction of the—either the shed or the screened enclosure? No, I did not. And again, if I'm understanding correctly, the work wasn't done by your mother. She had someone come in to do both of those projects? Yes, that's correct. Okay. All right. I didn't have anything else. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that sequence of events there based on what's in your sworn statement. And again, if you have anything else that you want to say, feel free to do so. No, that pretty much wraps it up what you have there, so I've—you know, that's my story. Okay. Very good. Mr. Moore, anything else? No, Your Honor. Some of these—the liens themselves, the date that I gave you before was May 4, and that's because these liens, at least in the context of the 20-083 case, they accrue every day, $50 a day. So it would have—it was from the good graces of Ms. Cotterman that he found out what the total was on May 4. So we appreciate the city's time and your time and your attention, and we're very grateful to be here with you tonight. All right. Let me just ask the city, Officer Meade, are there any questions that you have or anything else that the city would like to present? No, Your Honor. We're good with our presentation. Okay. All right. Then, in cases of this nature involving requests to reduce liens, I take them under advisement. Each jurisdiction does them a little bit differently, but they typically involve a number of documents that I like to spend a little bit more time with and get more familiar with the details before I write an order or, in this case, a recommendation with findings and conclusions about what I'm going to recommend be adopted as the amounts or amount of the lien in this case. So I will have an order or recommendation out, probably with the other orders, within the next few days, so you'll get that in writing. I'll take it under advisement until then. Any questions? Mr. Moore? No. Thank you very much, Your Honor. All right. Thank you to the staff here who set this up for us. All right. Well, thanks for coming in then, Ms. Moore. Mr. Wainwright, you all are free to go? Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Let's see. That's all that we have, Your Honor. All right. Are there any final matters that we should address before we adjourn? No, sir. All right. I usually like to turn these orders around next day. Unfortunately, I'll be hearing all day tomorrow. It might be an extra day before I get these out, but it should be relatively soon. I'll get them posted up into the signed orders folder in the system here. And if there's no other business to attend to, and here are none, we're adjourned. I'll see you all next time. Have a good evening. You too. Bye now.