Special Magistrate on 2026-08-26 5:30 PM - Aug 26, 2026

All right, let's go ahead and bring this proceeding to order. This is the City of Deltona Special Magistrate Agenda for August 26, 2026. We're getting in the way as scheduled at 5.30 p.m. My name is John Van Lanningham. I am the City's Special Magistrate for Justice and Enforcement, and I'll be conducting this evening's hearings. Before we get into the individual cases, we do have some preliminary matters to attend to, and let me begin by taking a roll call of the City Personnel Hill. City Personnel in attendance, if you would please identify yourselves on the record. Danny Rong, Code Compliance Manager. Sam Schaller, Assistant Fire Marshal. Lisa Nadeau, Fire Inspector. Mark Gibson, Code Compliance Supervisor. Todd Mead, Code Compliance Supervisor. Renee Kearney, Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor. Jessica Cotterman, Hearing Clerk. Tyler Russell, Code Compliance Coordinator. Bashir Cherkzi, Code Compliance Officer. Janice Palacic, Code Compliance Officer. Enrique Rios, Code Compliance Officer. Tom Ruddy, Code Compliance Officer. Tina Pagan, Code Compliance Officer. Joel Taylor, Code Compliance Officer. Anyone else? Kate Watson, City Attorney. Very good. At this time, let me ask everyone who's able to do so to stand with me and 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. Good evening, everyone. Again, we'll get into the individual cases in just a moment. Let me state on the record that as Special Magistrate, I have not seen or rather have not discussed any of these cases with anyone at the city or anyone else for that matter. I have not discussed the merits of the cases with any persons. I do have the minutes from last month's meeting of July 22nd. Are there any objections to the approval of the minutes from last month's hearings? Without objection, I'll approve those. Are there any announcements to place upon the record at this time? Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to withdraw DEL 26052, also, which is 1308 Azorro Drive. We'd like to withdraw DEL 26055, 3032 North Covington Drive. We want to continue Case DEL 26054, A through C, 719 Loretta Court. We are also DEL 26059, 2401 Dumas Drive. Continue that one as well. And when do you, the two cases, you want to continue them to next month? Yes, September 23rd. And the second case you mentioned after DEL 26052, can I hear that case number again? I didn't catch it. That will be DEL 26055, 3032 North Covington Drive. We want to withdraw that. All right. All right. Any other announcements at this time? No, sir. Let me go ahead then at this time and swear in all of the code officers, as well as the witnesses in attendance at this time in the meeting, in the hearing. We'll get you all sworn in at once. And if you don't 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. Thank you. You may be seated. And with those preliminary matters out of the way, we can begin calling the individual cases. Your honor, our first case will be DEL 26010, and that's 1432 Tivoli Drive. I said 016, didn't it? I'm sorry. DEL 26016. All right. Dislexion. And do we have anyone here for the property owners? No, not at this time. You may proceed, Dad. Okay. Good afternoon. I am Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Elgardo, Rios, Negron, and Petronila Cruz. The parcel ID number is 813-00-781-0150. It was ruled on March 25, 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 June 24, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $1,600 over 64 days. The City requests the fine to continue at $25 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Officer Ruddy. So, I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence at this time, and based on the record and the testimony we've just heard, I will enter an order imposing the fine and the lien. The fine has run for 64 days and accrued to the sum of $1,600. So, that amount will be imposed for the accrued amount, and it will continue to run at $25 a day until this property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? That would be all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26060. That's 595 Tyler Avenue. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is the City of Deltona v. Felicita Roach EST. The parcel ID number is 813-005-240-020. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 38-73C5, which states, thus, the following acts, among other, are declared to be loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noises in violation of this article, but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive. The using, operating, or permitting to be played, used, or operated of any radio, television, tape, or record player, amplifier, musical instrument, or other machine or device used for the production, reproduction, or emission of sound. The corrective action for said violation is to a 24-hour notice to discontinue loud and disturbing noise in the neighborhood. Any future violations can lead to a special magistrate hearing. This case began based on a complaint from a neighboring residence. Due to previous history, a notice of violation was posted to the garage door on June 2, 2026, requesting that the noise, music being played, cease. On June 3, 2026, an officer went to re-inspect the property and heard no music being played. Since then, the complainant, Chris Ondo, came in to provide an affidavit of witness stating that the music playing has continued and has not stopped. Per his affidavit, he states that the music was being blasted on the following dates and time. July 31, 2026, from 8.30 a.m., past 6 p.m., August 1, 2026, from 8 a.m., past 4 p.m., and on August 2, 2026, from 8.30 a.m., past 5.30 p.m. The complainant also provided video of music being played. Notice of hearing was posted on June 11, 2026, at which time I heard no music coming from the property. The city requests that if the property is found to be in violation and a violation occurs again after this hearing, that the property will be treated as a repeat offender and citations will be issued based off affidavits stating that a violation has again occurred. Anything else? No, Your Honor. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? We have the property owner as well as the complainant are here, but at the stand right now are the property owners. Let me ask the property owners first if you could introduce yourself, and let me ask you if you have any questions for the officer. My name is Evelyn Rosalie. I'm the daughter. My name is Maria Rodriguez. So what's your name, First Lady Evelyn? Yes, Evelyn Rosalie. How do you spell your last name? Rosalie? Yeah, R-O-S-A-L-Y. Okay. And who's with you? My mother, Maria Rodriguez. And which one of you is the property owner? Well, that's my grandma, but she passed away, so it's my mother, Maria Rodriguez. Did you have any questions for the code officer? No, I know when she came, my mom explained to me that they didn't hear music. My mother does play music, but at the times that the code compliance people came, they said that it didn't reach the decimal for it to be loud. It just echoed. She doesn't play until late. She does play, like, if she's doing yard work or cleaning the back, which is like a Bluetooth speaker. But all day, she does not play it all day. Let me ask the city then, do you have any other evidence to present? No, this is based off of an affidavit. So it's going to be based off of Christopher Ando's affidavit that he wrote. If I may, Your Honor, I believe the complainant is there and will testify as to the evidence. All right. Would you like to present the complainant now? If the respondent is finished, Your Honor, then yes. Well, let's finish with the, we'll go ahead and finish with the city's case. If you will, wait it on, then we'll see if the respondent has evidence as well. But why don't we just go ahead and go through the city's witness. My name is Chris Ando. Good evening, Mr. Ando. Can you spell your name for me, please? Chris? Yeah. C-H-R-I-S-O-N-D-O. O-N-D-O. Ando? Yes. All right. Mr. Ando, go ahead. This started on Christmas Eve. Woken up to loud, thumping music early in the morning. Same thing, Christmas. Called the sheriff's department. Called code compliance. Kansas getting kicked in the circles over and over again. Nothing's getting done. We finally went to court a week or two ago. The judge cited them a fine for a bird that was being aggravated by music. Yeah, no. When we'd call the sheriff's department, they would either not respond or they would respond hours later. Same thing with code compliance. So we started taking videos. And I have videos of this loud, obnoxious music. And a lot of times when we're working in my garden, when they see us, the music suddenly gets cranked up even louder. And it's absolutely just absurd and ridiculous. And I have videos that I would like to play for you guys. Are these the videos that were submitted with the evidence? Yes. Yes, sir. There's a lot more. But yes, I have videos of the most recent occurrence. All right. Go ahead. We tried talking to them. No, we spoke. It would look through the window. We did speak. And then you called the cops. And the cops even said, one at a time, please. One at a time. I'll let you ask questions. Yeah. Let me let Mr. Aron to testify. Okay. And I love music. I'm a musician. But there's a time and a place for things. Eight, nine o'clock in the morning isn't when you crank music like it's Marty Ra and having the speakers facing my house. That's not okay. And that's why I have all these videos where I think any reasonable person would look at these and say, this is not okay. They wouldn't tolerate it. And this has escalated. And that's why we're here today. And tell me again the hours that you've had this issue. Early in the morning, it's random. I can't predict when it's going to happen next. It hasn't happened in about two weeks. But it's occurred in the morning. This afternoon, it's happened late at night. No. It's extended hours. But usually, I'd say most times I experience this is early in the morning. Okay. For an hour or two, we play music. All right. Did you want to play or does the city want to play the videos? I think you'll include it in the exhibit packet. Okay. They're not going to be long. Yes, Your Honor. I think it would be helpful. All right. Why don't you play them and then, Mr. Rondo, if you want to narrate a gift and testimony about the circumstances, you can do that. Okay. So here, this is me. I'm sitting outside on my patio trying to read, which is something I like to do. And this is what I'm met with. I'd like to enjoy some peace and quiet in my backyard. But I can't because the neighbors, located at 595 Tyler Avenue, want to blast their music again. Would you like another one or anybody? I couldn't hear the music. Yeah, I couldn't hear the music on that one. I could hear your voice. I think you were talking on the video. Here we go again. Neighbors, blasting music. This prevents me from being able to enjoy peace and quiet on my own patio. And I've reported this to the city of Deltona countless times. I've provided videos, audio recordings, witness statements, affidavits, countless complaints in the city of Deltona. Does it enforce any rules regarding this? These are the same videos that are in the... No, that's right. Two separate videos. Right, right. These are the ones that the city provided? Yes, those are up there. All right. Give me one moment. I'm going to play the copy I have here because I think I'm not hearing everything through the transmission, so let me just hear it directly. Excuse me in a moment. All right. So is this representative of the kind of music that you've heard that you've been testifying about? Yes. I don't care what kind of music it is. Playing it that loud facing my house is not okay. I don't care if it's rock, country, Chinese music. I don't care. It's too loud. I can hear it. I can hear it on the videos here when I play it locally as opposed to over the... And other neighbors play music, and I love it when people play music around me, and I want people around me to play music and be happy and positive, but to crank it like that is ridiculous. Anything else? Does the city have any questions for Mr. Rondo? No, Your Honor. Ms. Rosley, do you have any questions for Mr. Rondo? No, I do not. I mean, I know every time the police come, they tell us that we could play the music. My mother plays it, and it's not an everyday thing. And he may have videos, and it's not a whole-day thing. I mean, I work most of the day, so if the music is being played, it's my mom. But, you know, I'm just here, of course, to, you know, be her witness and stuff like that. It's not an all-day thing. So are we not allowed to play, you know, is she not allowed to play music? Because every time she plays it, it's going to bother him, or, you know... Well, that's what we're going to determine. Yeah. All right, does the city have any other witnesses? No, Your Honor. No other neighbors have come forward. All right, so I'll receive the city's exhibited evidence. Let me turn to you, Ms. Rosalie, or Ms. Rodriguez. Do you have any evidence that you'd like to present or testimony? No, Mom. Can you repeat yourself, Your Honor, please? Yeah, would you like to testify about what the circumstances or the situation is? If you testify, you can do that. My mom? Either one of you. Oh, no. Your personal? Go ahead, Mom. Just speak. Yeah, no, that she just basically with that, with the music part, like, what is it? How many times are they going to call the sheriff's department? Because we do get the knocks on the door, but they do tell us, like, play the music. And the times that the co-compliance came, they tested the decimal, and they even told us clearly that it's not reaching the decimal for it to be a nuisance or to be loud or disturbing. So I'm confused. All right. Well, let me just, because I'm looking here, it doesn't look like, is there a decimal threshold in the ordinance? One minute, Your Honor. There is, Your Honor. It's Section 38-71. For residential, the sound level is 60 between the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 after 10 p.m. to 6.59 a.m. And do we have any evidence of the actual decimal levels? I mean, I can't tell from the videos. I can certainly hear the music, but I don't have any way to, you know, I can't tell from hearing what the decimal level was. Is there any evidence of that? I have not gone, every time I've gone out there, I've not heard music being played. I think prior to, with other cases, there were, the decimal meters were brought out with the dogs and the bird chirping, and I believe the music as well. So that was a case that's already been closed, and it was found all within the range. Just so I'm clear, the Section 38-71, it requires a decimal measurement in order to find the violation? There's no other language that lets you find that excessive noise based on other testimony or evidence? Your Honor, it doesn't require that that is found. Tell me again, I just don't have it right in front of me. What does it require regarding the decimal level? So it says maximum permissible sound levels by use occupancy. No person shall operate, and this is, for the record, 38-71 sound limitations established, applicability C. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound from any occupancy in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the use occupancy category in Table 1, more than 10% of any measurement period, which will not be less than 10 minutes when measured at or beyond the property boundary of the land use from which the sound emanates. For residential, which is the area that they're in, the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., the sound level is 60, and after 10 p.m. to 6.59 a.m., it's 55, or the decibel levels. But looking at Section 38.73, it appears that a code violation can be found to exist when disturbing, loud, or unnecessary noises are such that even though not measurable, it may not exceed the limits set up. The article may be excessive, unnatural, unusual, et cetera, otherwise a detriment to public health and welfare. It looks like it's not required under that provision. Am I reading that correctly? I just want confirmation. I don't have the whole article in front of me at the moment. Your Honor, I think you're reading it correctly. I don't think you have to actually measure the decibel to make a finding. All right. That's very good. All right. Ms. Rosalie or Ms. Rodriguez, do you have anything else? No. So basically, that doesn't matter, right? The decimals. So we were misinformed then. Okay. That's... I'm not saying that it doesn't matter because the code does set forth maximum decibel levels. Okay. So if you exceed the maximum decibel levels, undoubtedly there are consequences, code violation. There may be other consequences. I don't have the whole article in front of me. But under this section that this violation was brought, it's not necessary that there be proof of a particular decibel level. If there's other evidence that the noise was excessive, unnatural, prolonged, unusual, or otherwise detrimental. So the way the code provision is written on which this charge is founded, a finding violation can be made without a measured decibel level. But that isn't to say that the decibel level is irrelevant because there are probably other things that can happen. But anyway, did you have any other testimony or other evidence you'd like to present? No. And does the city have any questions for the property owner? The property owner has someone here with him that lives at the same residence as him that would like to speak. This is a complainant or someone on the defense side? Complainant. Complainant, but no affidavit has been put in from her. All right. Go ahead. Have you been sworn in? Yes, sir. All right. If he's given your full name, please. My name is Sandra Karlovich. Can you spell your last name? K-A-R-L-O-V-I-C-H. You would, please. I have lived at this residence for over five years, and in the last year, it has become miserable to live there. Between the noise, the birds, and whatnot, a couple weeks ago, we were out smoking a pork butt in our smoker on the porch. It started before 8 a.m. in the morning. It lasted until well in the afternoon on a Sunday. This is getting ridiculous. We can't enjoy outside. We can't go out in our garden without being assaulted by loud music, and it happens as soon as we walk outside. So it's not a coincidence. This is ongoing. No one should have to live like this. We've tried talking to them. We've made complaints. We have talked to the police who continually ignore us. I mean, no one should have to live where you have to live like a hermit, which is where we're at. That's not true. All right. Ms. Rosely, do you have any questions for this witness? No, I don't, because they make it seem like if my mom stands back there and waits until they go outside to start playing music. I mean, I'm at work, so, you know, it's like if I guess my mom has to stay in the back and wait until she sees them and start blasting music. That's something she wouldn't do. So I don't know where they're getting that from, in all honesty. All right. Ms. Rosely, do you have anything else you'd like to offer? No. Any other testimony? Any other evidence? No, Your Honor. Does the city have anything else? No, sir. And what the city is looking for, just so I can confirm this, is a finding of violation that would trigger a repeat offense, a repeat violation, if this occurs again in the future? Yes, Your Honor. It would have to be based off an affidavit again. All right. So at this time, the city is not seeking to impose any sort of fine? No, Your Honor. All right. All right. Very good. Well, based on the record evidence, including the exhibits which we've reviewed, which include those videos that Mr. Rondo submitted to the city, testimony from both sides, I do find a violation of Section 38.73 as charged, given that a decimal reading is not a prerequisite to a violation. I think the evidence persuades me that what is occurring here is prolonged and excessive and is certainly causing discomfort to residents of the city, two of whom have testified and whose testimony I find to be credible and corroborated by the videos that have also been submitted. Again, it may be a situation where if this took place over a brief period of time, it would be one thing, but clearly this is ongoing and lasts for lengthy periods of time on given days from early hours, as the testimony has established throughout the day through the afternoon and sometimes into the evening as well. So I will make a finding of violation as to the charge stated in the notice of violation. At this time, the city is not seeking any penalty in the form of a fine, but this finding does create a predicate for a repeat offense in the future, which could include more severe penalties. Is there anything else that the city needs in this case? No, Your Honor. All right. Ms. Rosalie, Ms. Rodriguez, I appreciate you coming in. You're free to go. So you do need to be careful about this noise so that you're not back in here on a repeat offense. I would encourage you to be courteous and listen to your neighbors if they do ask you to turn the sound down so we can avoid this ongoing problem. But you do have a finding now, and a repeat offense could result in, again, a more serious penalty. So I do encourage and urge you to try to be courteous and watch that sound so that we don't have this ongoing problem. All right? Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thanks for coming. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26032 A&B, 1630 West Waycross Circle. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I'm Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is a Massey case for the City of Deltona versus Oregon, LLC. The parcel ID number is 813-055-010-050. It was ruled on June 24, 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 $250 for violation A and $100 for violation B for a total of $350 per day since July 25th. As of today, the property has received a fine of $11,200 over 32 days. The City requests that the fines continue at $250 a day for violation A, $100 for violation B for a total of $350 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and that compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you, Mr. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? No, sir. All right. So I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I will find the property remains noncompliant, enter an order imposing the fine, the amount of, a crude amount to date of $11,200. And that fine will continue to run at the rate of $250 per day for violation A, $100 a day for violation B, for a cumulative total of $350 per day. That will run until this property has been brought into compliance, and compliance has been verified by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, sir. Yeah, and our next case will be DEL 26034. That's 1570 Puritan Street. Good evening again. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is a Massey case, City of Deltona v. Charlene Williams. The parcel ID number is 813-011-220-090. It was ruled on June 24, 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 $100 per day since July 25th. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $3,200 over 32 days. The City requests that the fines continue at $100 per day until the property has been brought into compliance and that compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. All right. So I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I find the property remains noncompliant and has accrued fines of $3,200 at $100 a day for 32 days, being on July 25th. So the order-imposing fine will set that amount at $3,200 plus the ongoing fine of $100 per day will continue to run until this property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26-038. That's 1968 South Old Mill Drive. Good evening, Your Honor. I am co-compliance officer Tina Pagan. The City of Deltono versus Bernd Tyler and Bernd Jody G. The parcel ID number is 813-00-915-0160. It was ruled on July 22nd, 2026 that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. Installed the secondary driveway of Crush Rocks without a permit. No permit obtained. Sod has not been placed on the right-of-way. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $100 per day since July 22nd, 2026. I'm sorry, disregard that. As of August 21st, 2026. As of today, the property has not been reached compliance and has incurred a total fine of $500 over the last five days. The City requests the fine continues at $100 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the co-compliance officer. Very good. Do we have the property owner here? Yes, Your Honor. I'm the property owner, Tyler Byrne. Mr. Byrne, do you have any questions for the code officer? No questions at this time. Does the City have anything else to present in its case? No, just photos of today. Those in the exhibits? Correct. Those you should. Receive the City's exhibits and evidence, and Mr. Byrne, let me hear from you. It was to my knowledge that I had up to today's date to get the issue corrected. I contacted a couple companies about getting sod, and I wasn't able to get the sod due to it being out of season. They said that, given in a couple weeks, I would be able to get the sod and have that replaced. But at this time, I was able to get the topsoil, and I have a receipt with today's date for the topsoil as well as photos. And I was also – yeah, that was it. I'm sorry. Tell me what it is that you've got there. I have a receipt for the topsoil mix to replace the crushed rock, because in that picture, the crushed rock from the front of the property has been removed. And then I have a receipt with today's date for the topsoil that has been replaced with it, as well as pictures with today's date. I'm looking at – this photograph is from today, the one that's up on the screen now? Yes, that is correct. So that's not showing any topsoil? My pictures are at 5 o'clock this afternoon. This evening? Yes. And you're testifying that you've got topsoil in that driveway. You just don't have the sod? Yes, and I have the receipt. The time for the receipt was today. You know what? It doesn't have an exact time, but my pictures have a time of about 5 o'clock p.m. When is the sod supposed to be installed? It's installed currently. Oh, it's currently installed? Yes. I can't see your photograph there, but why don't you show it to the officer? I'm not exactly sure how to input it. I'm sorry. I was attempting to print it. This is the only way I was able to provide it with a time stamp. It shows at 5.01 p.m. today. Does it appear in the photograph to be compliant? The sod is there. Now we're just going to need to wait for the grass to grow. So, yeah, I can't see the photographs, but I'm asking Officer Pagan, does it appear to be satisfactory, assuming the grass takes? Currently, no. Not at the moment. Just trying to find out what the state of it is. Yeah, give us a second. Supervisor is looking over the photo also. Okay. He just laid down the soil. There's no sod currently at the moment. There's no sod, Mr. Byrne? No, I was unable to acquire any, unfortunately. What's your plan with respect to the sod? I contacted a couple companies. They advised me to contact within a few weeks when it starts getting out of, they said, the hot season, and that I can get rolls a little bit more readily available. And I laid seed for the meantime. I know that I don't know if that's an exact remedy, but I'm making every attempt I'm currently able to. Does the city have any questions from Mr. Byrne? Not at the moment. Did you say six weeks? They advised me. I was told a couple weeks, as in from my understanding, about two to three weeks. Let me get a clarification from the city. I know we spent some time on this case last month just to get preordinated as to the details. If and when he lays down the sod on that topsoil, assuming it's watered in and it grows, is he then in compliance? You're just trying to remember what it is he needs to do? Yes. Okay. And you're saying you've got a couple weeks to go? I actually have a question, if I may, for the city. If I didn't want sod at all, if I wanted, as I've seen some properties, if I want to do my entire front property in a crushed material, how would I go about that? It will have to be the way it's always currently done with a driveway expansion that will have to be connected to the driveway and spread it on out. However, the right-of-way is not allowed to be touched unless you have a right-of-way permit. But my question is not to use as a driveway extension just for apparel purposes. As I've seen many properties not have any grass or sod at all, they just have rock material, crushed rocks. Yeah, that is correct. You could get a permit to get crushed rocks in the area you're going to put it on. Bring your survey to City Hall, retrieve the permit, and then you show them where you want to put the crushed rocks at. However, it needs to be attached towards the driveway, even though you're not going to use it as a driveway expansion, but you can't do broken parts like that. Okay, that answers my question. That answers what you're asking, Mr. Byrne? Yes, it does. Based on that, what would be, at least at the moment, your intention, to lay the sod? I think currently it may be to lay the sod until I can figure out exactly what I want my plan to be. At this time, I'm just trying to bring the property up to code so that way we don't have to continue with, you know, everything we're doing today. I just want to bring the property up to code and then on my own time be able to take the necessary steps that I need to to make any changes that I want. Can you get that sod laid down in the next 30 days? I think that should be possible. Watered in? I'm sorry, what did you say? You're going to get it watered in so that it'll take and everything. So in 30 days, we could look at a picture of grass? Yeah, that should seem a little bit more realistic. All right. Well, here's what I'm going to do then. I do appreciate the fact that you've taken steps towards compliance, albeit you've kind of skidded over the deadline by a few days and maybe a few more weeks based on the issue of the sod. I mean, I accept your testimony about the timing issues and what you've been told by the landscapers, you know, or the nursery folks. But but nevertheless, there's still some work to do to bring this property into compliance. What I'm going to do is reserve ruling on the imposition of the fines and lien today. I'm going to continue the case for 30 days to the next hearing, the one in September, whatever the date is, and have you come back in here. And I'll decide then what to do. But at that time, I want to see pictures of sod on the driveway and and hopefully be able to hear that you're in compliance. And then we'll decide what to do about the fine that began to run on the 21st at $100 per day. I don't necessarily want to punish you excessively if you're working diligently to get this done, but we do need to bring it in for a landing and bring you into compliance. But based on your testimony about being able to get this completed in the next couple of weeks, I'll give you that additional time. And as I say, I'll continue this till the next month on reserve ruling and we'll take this up again next month and decide what to do based on the circumstances. But if it looks like it does, you know, if it's if it's not in compliance and you do have a fine that that that is running and if not modify it at some point, like at the next hearing, it's going to become a much bigger number. Understood. All right. So, again, just to be clear, I'll reserve on the on the on the merits here on the fine and the lien. And we'll continue this till the next till the next talk, the next agenda. And at that time, I'll hear the circumstances and decide what to do again. My hope is that when we hear this case again next month, there will be pictures of grass on that driveway and you'll be you'll be city can tell me you're in compliance. All right, Mr. Byrne. OK, thank you, Your Honor. All right. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, that is all. Thank you, sir. All right. Mr. Byrne, you're free to go and we'll see you again next month, hopefully with good news. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be fire zero three two two zero two six. That's twelve fifty one Providence Boulevard suite one hundred. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. My I am Fire Inspector Lisa Nadeau. This is for fire dash zero three two dash twenty two twenty twenty six A and B Massey case. The city of Deltona versus the Obsidian ML eight LLC. Parcel ID number is eight one three two zero one zero one zero zero five zero. This is a Massey case. This was initially a case for a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Chapter forty two Article four Fire Code Section forty two dash one eighty six, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. As adopted by the State Fire Marshal in specific, the Florida edition of NFPA one Fire Code Chapter one point seven point twelve point ten. No construction work shall proceed until the AHJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable permits have been issued. Violation A has been corrected and is in compliance. 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 to its original condition. It was ruled on June 24th, 2026 that the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property did not come into compliance within those 30 days and has been receiving a fine of $50 a day since July 25th, 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars over 30 days. As of today's date, the property is still not in compliance. The city would like to request that the fine of fifty dollars per day continue until such time that the property owner has notified the city of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Very good. Do we have anyone here for the property owner? No, sir. All right. So I will receive the city's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony of the exhibits. I'll find the property remains not compliant as to a violation fee involving the storage closet constructed without the necessary permits. A fine on that violation has been running at $50 per day since July 25th, 2026 and has accrued to the sum of one thousand six hundred fifty dollars. I will enter an order and impose a fine that will assess that amount plus the ongoing fines of $50 per day, which will continue to run and to accrue upon this property until it is brought into full compliance and compliance has been verified by the city. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, sir. No, sir. All right. Very good. Thank you. Yeah. On our next case will be Fire 0382026. That's 1240 East Normandy Boulevard. Evening, Your Honor. Good evening. Assistant Fire Marshal Sam Schaller. This will be City of Deltona v. Carolina Cleaning, Roberto Renovations, LLC. Parcel ID number is 813-201-010030. This is a Massey case. This is initially a case for a 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. Specific Florida edition of NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 1.7.12.10. State's no construction work shall proceed to the AHJ as reviewed the plans for compliance and the applicable permits have been issued. The corrective action for said violations is to obtain an issued building permit for the work conducted in Suite 100, include the new walls and electrical. As ruled on June 21, 2026, the property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property owner did not come to compliance within those 30 days, receiving a fine of $50 per day since July 25, 2026. As of today, the property has accrued a total fine of $1,650 over 30 days. As of today's date, the property is still not in compliance. In closing, the city would like to request a fine of $50 per day. Continue until such time the property owner is notified of the city of compliance. Compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Right. Is anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. All right. So I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'll find the property remains out of compliance with respect to the violation involving the expired building permit. That we will enter an order opposing the fine accrued to date in the amount of $1,650 since July 25, and that a fine of $50 per day will continue to run going forward until this property has been brought into full compliance and said compliance has been verified by the city. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26037. That's 578 South Anchor Drive. This is a continue from last month. I am co-compliance officer Tina Pagan, the city of Deltona versus Nancy M. Harmon. The parcel ID number is 813-003-610-120. It was ruled on July 22, 2026 for homeowner's son, Kevin Kirch, is to provide documents on the progress of the insurance claim, including probate case status. As of today, I have not received any documents from Kevin Kirch nor any claims from a company. When I went today, out of three of the violations, one of them were fixed, which was the window. However, the garage door and the interior walls are still damaged. The city requests a daily fine in the amount of $100 per day for each violation past the affirmation date, totaling $200 a day. We've got two violations, $100 per violation? One. One violation? It's two separate violations, right? It's together as one, but it is separate. You're asking for $100 per day on two separate issues for a couple of $200? Sir, it's going to be for one. We're going to combine it all under one case, so it'll be $100 per, you know, this case. A total of $100 fine, then. For both violations, I guess, $100 a day. Do we have the property owner here? I know he was here last time, or representative was. No, no one's here. And you haven't spoken to Mr. Kirch? I spoke to him on Saturday, past Saturday, and I informed him that no one has reached out to me, nor that I receive any emails, because he stated that they was going to email me some information. However, I did not receive any. When is the city asking these fines to be, and what's the compliance date, or the date you want the fines to commence? Let's get us home with the story here. Starting today. So he hasn't given you any of the information that was provided in the order? No documents whatsoever. So I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence to make the finding a violation as to the charges and the notice. We're going to start the daily fine running today, and just so I'm clear, the city is asking for a total of $100 per day? That is correct, $100 per day. So we'll start a fine, a daily fine of $100 beginning today, or rather, we'll start the fine, let me back up. Let's start the fine beginning to run on August 27th, so we'll start that fine tomorrow. And that fine will run at $100 per day until the property has been brought fully into compliance, and compliance has been verified by the city. Is there anything else that the city needs on this case? No, that'll be all. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Y'all, our next case will be DEL 26048, 936 Shortcrest Avenue. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is a case, the city of Deltona v. Giovanna Delgado Campos and Jesus Piedad Suarez Rodriguez. The personal ID number is 813-011-440-150. 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. Corrective action for said violation is, you must obtain a permit for the carport enclosure or restore it back to its original. Obtain permits if necessary. This case began on March 9, 2026 for a carport that had been enclosed with concrete block and two new windows with no permit on file for the work that was performed. On April 28, 2026, after there was still no permit on file, notice of violation was posted to the front door. On August 11, 2026, after verifying that there was still no permit on file for the enclosure, notice of hearing was posted to the front door, and an affidavit of service was also completed. As of today, the property is still in violation. However, a permit has been submitted and is on file and currently under review, but has not yet been issued. The city requests 60 days, October 26, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine of $250 per day past the affirmation date. Very good. Is there anyone here for the property, Honor? Yes, Your Honor. Yes, I'm right here. What's your name? My name is Giovanna Delgado. I'm the owner. All right. Do you have any questions for the code officer? No, I just, I already submitted a permit, and I'm working on the, I'm going to take the windows, the AC out, but I already submit another permit for the AC, so I'm working on it. You need a separate permit for the AC? Yeah, I submit that too already. All right. Very good. Does the city have anything else to present? Any other evidence? No, Your Honor. All right, so I'll receive the city's exhibits of evidence. I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Delgado. Did you have any evidence, any additional evidence you want to present, or any additional testimony? No. All right, so you've applied for an after-the-fact permit for the enclosure of the carport? Yeah, I applied the 19th, and they told me it would take three to five days, but I haven't received no email yet. You understand the city is asking for a compliance date of October 26? Say it again? The city is asking for a, asking that you'd be given 60 days to bring the property into compliance to avoid doing a fine. Yes, I understand. All right. Did you have any response to that? Right now, I'm just currently working on, like I said, the AC, and hopefully everything goes through, and that's it. Okay. All right, so based on the testimony I've heard and the exhibits and evidence, I do find the violations set forth in the notice that are established, so I'll make a fighting violation. We're going to set the compliance date as recommended to October 26, 2026. It gives you about 60 days, Mr. Delgado, to get this property into compliance and avoid incurring a fine. If the property remains not compliant beyond that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $250 per day on October 27, and that fine will continue to approve until the property is brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the city. Does the city need anything else on this case? No, Your Honor. Thank you. And, Ms. Delgado, do you have any questions? No. All right, so I do stay on top of this and get these matters resolved prior to October 26 so you can avoid the penalty, all right? All right, thank you. All right, thanks for coming in. Free to go. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26049 A&B 1149 Lyric Drive. Good evening, Your Honor. Evening. My name is Enrique Rios. I'm employed by the city of Deltona as a co-compliance officer. This will be case number DEL 26049 A&B, city of Deltona versus Victor Magdalene and G&T Prisendo. The parcel ID is 813-040-310-160. Again, that's 1149 Lyric Drive, Deltona, Florida, 32738. The violations are as follows. Violation A, this is a violation of the city of Deltona ordinance, section 18.5, which adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, section 305.3, which states interior surfaces, including windows and doors, shall be maintained in good, clean, and sanitary conditions. Peeling, chipping, flaking, or abraded paint shall be repaired, removed, or covered, cracked, or loosened plastic, decayed wood, and other defective service conditions shall be repaired. A corrective action for said violation is to repair and or replace interior surface to include holes in the ceiling, in the kitchen, and or living room area. On the fence, excuse me, the repairs must meet all requirements of city ordinance and be approved on final inspection. 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 504.1, which states that all plumbing fixtures shall be properly installed and maintained and in working order, and shall be kept free from obstructions, leaks, and defects, and be capable of performing the function for which such plumbing fixtures are designed. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace the damaged plumbing. Statutory requirements for notification of the hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation were sent certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to the hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the days they were taken. As it pertains to violation A, on July 1, 2026, I arrived at the property in response to a complaint for unresolved plumbing issues. During the inspection, I met the complainant and primary tenant of the home, Tiffany Alfred, who stated plumbing issues have existed for several months and contact with the homeowner was limited and pretty much non-existent, including up to and including the repairs. No repairs were being performed at that time. There were plumbing issues, pre-existing plumbing issues from January 2026 in which one of two bathrooms were repaired and one repair remained present and so the leaking was occurring through the ceiling in the kitchen from one of the upstairs bathrooms. And this was, again, a violation A is for the interior surface. You can see there are holes in the ceiling there and that is where the repairs began but are still incomplete and those holes still exist. NoV was posted to the property on July 3, 2026, and notice of hearing was posted on August 12, 2026. As it pertains to violation B, for damaged plumbing, this violation is consistent with violation A, and subsequently a notice of violation was posted on August 4, 2026, and on, excuse me, on July 4, 2026. My apologies, July 9th, when the leaking pipes were first observed. An NOH or notice of hearing was posted on August 8th as well, 2026. On August 19, through re-inspection or the latest physical inspection was found that the leaking has extended to the kitchen area and there's a small or short video of the kitchen leaking. Let's see if we can pull that up right here. This is a pretty significant leak, whereas leaking in the ceiling was much slower and harder to capture on film but still present. So currently the property remains in violation and is therefore being brought to magistrate, of course, here. In closing, the city would like to request $50 per day per violation for a total of $100 per day for the property coming to compliance until such a time that the property owner notifies the city of compliance. What's the compliance date you're recommending? Excuse me, Monday, August 31st, this coming Monday. Do we have anyone here on behalf of the, do we have the property owner? We do not have the property owner. Contact has not been made whatsoever between the tenant or the officer with the property owner. We've tried to do people searches and make contact, and no contact has been successful. We do have the tenant or the complainant present. They have not been sworn in, I'll say that. Did they want to speak? Does the tenant want to speak? Yes, she does, if she would have a moment to make her way to stand. And let me get your name, please. Tiffany Alfred. Tiffany Alfred? Yes. Were you sworn in previously? No. All right, why don't you raise your right hand for me, please? You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right, Ms. Tiffany, would you state your last name for us and spell it, please, just so I've got it correct in the record here? Alfred, A-L-F-R-E-D. All right, just like it sounds. Very good. Go ahead. Hi. We obtained the property. We originally had a property management company that we went through. This leaking actually started occurring November 22nd, and our rent was paid in full all the way up until February. So when we started getting the backlash of why the repairs weren't done, but we had given a substantial amount of money up front to move in the home, over $17,000, substantial amount. The AC had went, that got fixed, and then I was told that a death certificate needed to be got on the house because the wife had passed away, so he couldn't take out a loan to fix it. I have never, to this day, I have never had a verbal conversation with him. It went through the property manager, and when I sent a notice of intent to withhold rent in January due to the plumbing still not being fixed, she then, I guess, fired him as a client, so she wouldn't even maintain the home anymore. So when that happened in February, our lease was coming up in June, and we were supposed to renew our lease. When I stated to a family friend that I wasn't paying for the plumbing repairs out of my own pocket, I then was told that the lease won't be renewed and I'll be evicted. So it's been a pretty eventful task here. Yeah, I can tell. All right. Well, let's see what we can do here to get this straightened out. Does the city have anything else? No, Your Honor. All right. So I'll receive the city's exhibits and evidence, and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I will find a violation as to these charges stated in A and B in the notice of violation, we're going to set the compliance date to August 31, 2026, as recommended. If compliance is not achieved by that date, then we're going to start running a daily fine of $50 per day per charge, A and B, for a total of $100 per day. That will begin running the day after August 31 and will run until the property is fully compliant and compliance has been verified by the city. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Ms. Alfred, you're free to go. Thank you. Good luck to you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26050. That's 303 Elnora Avenue, Bateman Appeal. Your Honor, maybe I can make this short. There was appeal requested on a vehicle abatement at this location. The requester is not here. If you allow us, please continue. We continue the abatement process starting tomorrow morning. All right. You want to continue this the next month? No. If you allow us to continue the abatement process on our end, we can tow the vehicles tomorrow. Oh, oh, oh, oh. The requester is not here, and if we don't need to present this case, you allow us to move forward on the abatement. Yeah, so you just need an order to that effect to authorize the city to move? Correct. If you could give us an order to continue, and we could abate it tomorrow. I'll enter that order. I'll receive the city's exhibits in evidence. We'll enter that order of abatement. Your Honor, do we need to read this in? Yeah, I'll go ahead and read it in so that the record's clear. Go ahead. Just a moment, Your Honor. You can do an abbreviated read in. All right. Bear with me just a moment. I'm Code Compliance Officer Enrique Rios, once again, employed by the City of Deltona. The City of Deltona versus John Bickerstaff. Partial ID is 813-063-190-010. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance, Section 66-56, a violation of the City Ordinance, which states that all abandoned vehicles or vehicles that are inoperative, wrecked, partially dismantled, or otherwise mechanically incapable of being operated in their present condition or without a current state license tag if required or a current state if required shall be prohibited on any public right-of-way or under any circumstances or on public property except within a completely enclosed garage or when such vehicles are permitted principal use or special exception in any zoning classification. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a tag and or repair in operative vehicles or store it in an enclosed garage. Essentially, the case began on June 26, 2026 as a result of proactive inspections in the area in conjunction with other violations of the property was observed to have several vehicles missing, license plates, and or inoperable. A door hanger was left describing the violation and corrective action. On July 8th and 9th, abatement notices were posted and sent certified mail. First contact was made on July 9th as well with the homeowner, John Bickerstaff, where ordinance information and corrective action were clarified. His appeal was submitted on the 15th of July, 2026, and that essentially is where we stand today. It appears, based upon inspection as well, actually, today that the violation of the abandoned vehicles has been resolved and other violations exist and cases will continue on the property for improper parking as he continues to resolve his parking situation where he still has several vehicles and improper parking continues to be a problem for him. So if he is to come back out of compliance with the abandoned vehicles, we do seek, again, a repeat. So, as I said, I've seen these city's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony exhibits. I'm going to find that there is a nuisance on the property because of the abandoned or unlicensed vehicles shown in the photograph. So the city's requested an order allowing the abatement of this nuisance by the city, I guess, to remove those vehicles. So I'll enter that order. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26051, 810-80101-0010 Avenue, East Paper. Good evening, Your Honor. Code Compliance Manager, Danny Ron, presented this case. This is a violation of City of Deltona Order in 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, plumbing system, from 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 permits. In this case, it was a fence installed and no permits on file. Corrective action, yes, to obtain a permit for this fence installation. Notice of violation was issued on July 6, 2026, and posted on the property. Notice of hearing was issued on July 30, 2026, and posted on the property. Sir, as of today, no permit has been obtained for the fence. In my closing, the city would like to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance, or a fine of $250 per day for this violation to be imposed until such time that the property only notifies the city of compliance. That is my presentation. Very good. And when is 30 days from today? It will be what, September? What's the day? 25, sir. 25, okay. I am not sure if the owner is here. I don't see anybody staying up. No, it's here for the property owner. I'll go ahead and receive the city's exhibits and evidence. Based on those exhibits and the testimony, I will make you find a violation as to the unpermitted fence it's charged. And we're going to set the compliance date at 30 days after September 25, 2026. Compliance is not achieved by that date. We'll start running a fine of $250 per day. $250 per day beginning on September 26, 2026, and running until this property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the city. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, sir. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26053 A&B, and that's 820 Deltona Boulevard. Hello. I am Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Oaksville property, Deltona LLC. The parcel ID number is 803-614-00-0020. Violation A. This is a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, reference to 304.9, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, which states all overhang extensions including, but not limited to, canopies, marquees, signs, metal awnings, fire escapes, standpipes, and exhaust ducts shall be maintained in good repair and be properly anchored so as to keep it in sound condition. Where required, all exposed surfaces of metal or wood shall be protected from elements and against decay or rust by periodic application of weather coating materials, such as paint or similar surface treatment. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace damaged sign. Violation B is a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 304.13, which states that every window, skylight, door, and frame shall be kept in good condition, good repair, and weather type. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or replace damaged missing windows and remove boards. This case was assigned to me by the Department Manager on June 22, 2026. Upon arrival at the property on June 22, I observed a sign in disrepair and broken windows. The notice of violations were posted the same day on the front window. The property owner was given until July 2, 2026 to comply. On July 26, 2026, the property remained in violation of both ordinances. There has been no contact with the property owner. As of today, the property is still in violation. The City requests 30 days, September 25, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine and amount of $100 per day for violation A and $100 per day for violation B past this date. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. And is there anyone here for the property, Your Honor? No, there is not, Your Honor. So I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the exhibits and the testimony I'm going to make finding a violation as to the charges A and B set forth in the notice involving the damage to signage or sign and the damage to missing windows as established in the evidence. We're going to set a compliance date of September 25, 2026 for these violations. If they are not brought into compliance by that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $100 per day for each of these counts, A and B, a cumulative total of $200 per day starting on September 26, 2026 and running until this property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, there is not. Thank you, sir. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26056. That's 2265 Rabinton Road. Good evening, Your Honor. My name is Beshear Turkzi. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be City of Deltona v. Ileana M. Orbegozo. Parcel ID number is 81358050060. This is violation of City of Deltona section 18-5302.7 housing code accessory structure adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 302.7 which states accessory structures including detached garages, fences, and walls shall be maintained as structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective actions for said violation is to repair or to remove the structure. In this case, it's a fence. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being set certified mail to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day that were taken. This is a proactive case that was for offense and disrepair that was opened on May 12, 2026 while addressing another violation of this property. A notice of violation was posted the same day and the property owner was given until May 21, 26 to come into compliance. As of today, the property remains in violation. The City would like to request 30 days until September 25th for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $100 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Very good. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. No one's here. I will receive the City's exhibits in evidence and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make a filing violation regarding the fence and structures and disrepair, including visible photographs. We're going to set the compliance date to September 25, 2026. If the property has not been brought fully into compliance by that date, we'll start running a fine of $100 per day on September 26, 2026 and run that fine until compliance has been achieved and verified by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, that'll be all, sir. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26057. That's 2985 Kiesler Street. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turkson. I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This is the City of Deltona versus Campbell, Ralph, and Dorothy. Parcel ID number is 81-30-32-110-150. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, IPMC 302.7, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or remove the fence. Statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the Notice of Hearing and the Notice of Code violation being sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including the photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the Special Magistrate Clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This is a proactive case for a fence in disrepair that was opened July 5, 2026, while addressing other violations at this property. A Notice of Violation was posted July 13, 26, and the property owner was given until July 22nd to come into compliance. As of today, the property remains in violation. The City would like to request 30 days until September 25th for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $100 per day to be imposed until such time that the property owner has notified the City of compliance. Very good. Anyone here for the property owner here? No, Your Honor. So I will receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the exhibits and the testimony. I will make a binding violation concerning the fence in disrepair, again, clearly visible in the photographs. And we're going to set the compliance date as recommended to September 25th, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $100 per day. That fine will start on September 26th, 2026, and continue to accrue until the property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? That'll be all, Your Honor. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26058A and B, and that's 2289 Rebberton Road. Good evening. My name is Bashir Turk-Zia, and I'm employed by the City of Deltona as a code compliance officer. This will be City of Deltona versus Antonio Junior Salas. Parcel ID number is 8130-58050100. This property is being brought before the special magistrate for more than one violation. These two violations are for the same City of Deltona ordinance section 18-3, adopting the latest edition of the Florida Building Code section 105.1, which states that any owner authorized agent who intends to construct a large altar, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of the building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, altar, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or promise system, the installation of which is regulated by this code or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain a permit for violation A to obtain a permit for an accessory structure in law suite. And for the violation B will be for the enclosed patio. Applications must be submitted to the City of Deltona, 2345 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32725. The structure must meet all requirements of city ordinance and be approved on final inspection. The statutory requirements for notification of this hearing have been met by the notice of hearing and notice of code violation being sent certified mailed to the property owner at the address listed with the property appraiser's records. In addition, both notices were posted on the property and at City Hall at least 10 days prior to this hearing. All of the evidence in this case, including photographs, have been marked as exhibits and submitted to the special magistrate clerk. I certify any and all photographs to be true and accurate portrayals of what I observed on the day they were taken. This was a proactive case that was opened on December 21st, 2025. While addressing code violations in the area, I noticed an accessory structure in law suite, along with other work done at this property without a permit on file. I spoke to the property owner, Mr. Salas, and advised him of the violations and corrective actions. A notice of violation was posted on February 23rd, 2026, and the property owner was given until March 4th, 2026 to come into compliance. As of today, the property remains in violation. The City would like to request 30 days or until September 25th for the property to come into compliance or a fine of $250 per day per violation to be imposed until such time that the property owner notifies the City of Compliance. Is there anyone here? Is the property owner here? Yes, Your Honor, he's here. Mr. Salas? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Antonio Salas. All right. Do you have any questions for the code officer? No, I just was going to ask if I needed an extension because I have gotten somebody, an engineer, my son finally got found me one, that's going to get everything back in order according to what you need to be done. All right. Well, the city's asking for a compliance date 30 years out to September 25th. Yeah, I think that'll be fine, hopefully, because he was supposed to be here today, and I thought the sting was going to be tomorrow. If I didn't come today over here, I would have missed it. Right. So you're not contesting the violations? No, no, no. All right. Very good. So I'm going to receive the city's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony as well as the property owner's statements. I will find these violations exist and are undisputed, both as to Charge A and Charge B. involved in the accessory structure with a permit in the clutch patio. We'll set the compliance date to September 25th, 2026, as recommended. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we start running a daily fine of $250 per day per count, starting on September the 26th, and running each day until this property has been brought fully into compliance and compliance has been verified by the city. Okay. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, no. No, sir. No, no, no, sir. All right. Mr. Salas, any questions? Salas? No. All right. Thanks for coming in. Do stay on top of this so that you can avoid that fine. All right? All right. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your honor, our next case will be Fire 04426 1000 Integra Miss Boulevard. We get that case number again. That'll be Fire 04426. Evening, Your Honor. Assistant Fire Marshal Sam Schaller. This will be City of Deltona v. Integra Miss LP. Partial ID number is 810-706-000055. Violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Code Chapter 42-186, which adopts the most recent addition to the Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal. It's specific, the following violations of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Violation A, NFPA 1 Chapter 13.1.8, all fire protection systems and devices shall be maintained in a reliable operating condition, shall be repaired or replaced where defective or recalled. Violation B, NFPA 1 Chapter 13.1.9, whenever impairments, critical deficiencies, or non-critical deficiencies identified in water-based fire protection systems maintain in accordance with NFPA 25, shall be corrected in a time frame approved by the AHJ. Violation C, NFPA 1 Chapter 13.1.6, detailed records documenting all systems and equipment testing and maintenance shall be kept by the property owner, shall be made available upon request for review by the AHJ. Corrective action for said violations is as follows. Violation A, contact your fire alarm service provider, correct the deficiencies notice in the December 11, 2025, fire alarm inspection maintenance reports in Buildings 2, 7, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20. Correct the deficiencies notated in the September 10, 2025, backflow inspection maintenance report for Building 7. Violation B, contact your fire sprinkler service provider, correct the outstanding deficiencies in the fire sprinkler system in Building 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20. Violation C, provide copies of semi-annual fire sprinkler inspection maintenance reports for Buildings 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, and 20. This case began on May 19, 2026. Fire Safety Inspector Jerry Bailey, who's conducting annual fire inspection at this address, he observed the fire sprinkler risers in Buildings 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20. All had red tags, indicates a critical deficiency to the system. Addition, previous year's worth of fire alarm inspection maintenance, backflow, and fire sprinkler reports were also requested during this inspection. Upon receiving and reviewing the fire alarm and backflow reports for Buildings, it was noted that the fire alarm reports had deficiencies documented by the contractor in Building 2, 7, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, while the backflow report indicated deficiency with Building 7's backflow preventer. Addition, no semi-annual fire sprinkler inspection maintenance reports had been provided. Property was notified of these violations, provided with a time frame to correct them. Re-inspections were conducted on June 15, July 7, July 22, August 5, August 14, no repairs have been made, and semi-annual sprinkler reports have been provided. We were contacted by a fire protection contractor, Dyna Fire, who advised that they were going to sign a contract to begin the work. That's all we know at this point. City's going to request 30 days for the property to come into compliance, fining the amount of $250 per day per violation past the date. Excuse me, Your Honor. Ma'am, were you sworn in? What? Were you sworn in? No. Your Honor, she's going to need to swear in. All right, who do we have? My name is Lauren Hendry, H-E-N-D-R-Y. I'm the regional manager for Integromist. All right, let me get you sworn in. Would you raise your right hand for me, please? If you swear or affirm, the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. And go ahead and state your name now that you're sworn in. Lauren Hendry. Hendry, H-E-N-D-R-Y. First of all, do you have any questions for the inspector, the officer? I don't think so. I was told, though, by the staff that A was completed. No, Your Honor. The backflow, no? No, that was not completed, no. If it was, we didn't get anything on it. So from Dynafire. Okay, so let me get with Dynafire then because that's what – okay. That was my only question, really. All right. Do you have any testimony you'd like to give? I will say that, yes. We've had a management change there over this past month, so what – we have signed the contract for B, for the fire extinguisher – or not extinguisher, but the sprinkler, all the sprinkler stuff. And they did – or we paid the deposit. I have the proof that we paid the deposit to get the parts ordered. I guess they needed half of it to get the parts ordered, so we sent them that. Then we're told by Dynafire that it took a while to get the parts. We wouldn't have them right away. So he sourced them out through someone else, I guess, but he was able – we don't have them yet, but they are – they did anticipate them getting them soon, and he said he has scheduled it to start on September 2nd, and it would take three days. So September 2nd to September 4th, he said it would be done, as long as they got the parts right before then, which he didn't think they would have an issue getting them before then. So that was for B, I guess, and for C, the copies of the fire sprinkler inspections. So I guess my question there would be, were you requesting them on site when you were there and we did not have them, or – Yes, ma'am, and it was sent through all the inspection reports we've been sending. Okay, and then does Dynafire provide you those, or we provide you those? You generally will get them from your contractor and then provide them to us. Okay, so I did – currently our new manager started last week, and I do have some that Dynafire provided for us. I don't know if that's what you were looking for. I'd be happy to provide them for you. In just the interest of everyone's time, I don't want to have to go through all of them. That's fine. Just email them to me. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Can I get your email address before we go then, or – Yeah, I'll give it to you to write down. I guess that was it. So I would request that you give us a little bit of extra time because we do have it scheduled, and I can double-check in the morning the violation A for that backflow and everything because I was told that was fixed, so I can check with Dynafire on that. Well, we're going to set a compliance date 30 days out, so there should be plenty of time given what you just told me. Correct. That brings us out to September the 25th. Okay. All right. So anything else, Ms. Hendry? No. Do we get charged fines, though, or only if we don't do that by the 25th of September? Or only if you don't do it by the September of 25th. Perfect. Thank you. All right. So I'm going to receive the city's exhibits and evidence. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'm going to make the finding violation as to the charges set forth in the notice and identified as A, B, and C. And we're going to set the compliance date for the correction of these violations out 30 days to September 25, 2026. If these violations continue past that date, we start running a daily fine of $200 per day per account, starting on September 26, 2026, and running until compliance has been achieved and verified by the city. If, Ms. Hendry, you have these cleared up and corrected and verified prior to that compliance date, then you will not incur that daily fine. So you are encouraged to get that done to avoid that penalty. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Henry, any questions? All right. Thanks for coming in here. Thank you, sir. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be GEL 24067. That's 1553 Providence Boulevard. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Co-Compliance Officer Joel Taylor. We're here for a fine reduction hearing for David S. Price Estates. Parcel number 813-055-060-070. And the address is the 1553 Providence Boulevard, Deltona, Florida 32735. This is a hearing on the reduction, a fine reduction request, excuse me. This hearing will be covered in case DEL 24-067. This case was presented to the Special Magistrate on July 2nd, 2024, and again as a Massey on August 28th of 2024. The case was a violation for fence and disrepair, Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code 302-7, or .7, excuse me. It was ruled that the property owner until August 1st of 2024 to come into compliance before the fine would accrue a $25 per day. The property did not come into compliance until 690 days after the initial ruling. The property has a fine totaling $17,250. The property was listed as an estate, David S. Price Estates. There were heirs to the property. However, the heirs were unaware of the inheritance. The current owner did the legwork and located them in Pennsylvania. An agreement to purchase the property from the heirs was agreed upon. The current owners brought the property into compliance on June 23rd, 2026. The city's operational cost for the case number DEL 24-067 is $3,550.50, reflecting the administrative and operational expenses incurring by the city, including but not limited to code, office hours, administrative staff, processing time, and city's vehicle time. The city does not have any recommendations at this time to request full recovery of the $17,250 in outstanding fines owed by the property owner. The property owner is requesting a reduction from $17,250 to $1,500. That's it. All right. Thank you, Officer Taylor. And I see Brendan Schwalm here, and I see the reduction request, and I don't know if you were here earlier. Did we get you sworn in? Yeah, I was here at the beginning. Okay. And so you've got the floor. Why don't you walk me through your request? Yeah, so obviously he passed away in the beginning of 2024. Before, he was estranged from his two daughters. They did not even know that he had passed away. We ended up tracking them down through genealogy work. We purchased the property, got the property right into compliance the second we had ownership of it. Ironically, the fence was not even the fence of the owners. It was the neighbor's fence, and so we had to get their permission to take it down, and it was just on our lot line. So we got the permission of the neighbors to take it down, and that was how we got into compliance. The neighbors had put the fence up, but it was encroaching on what had now become a property. Yeah, and yeah, I mean that's – obviously we've bought dozens of property in the city of Daltona over the years. We've always played by the rules. We always did and acted as fast as you guys requested, and I don't want to be punished, nor do I want the heirs to be punished for doing something we didn't do and wasn't really even on our – it's not even really ours. So let me just – to understand the chronology here, the owner of the property at the time the violation created was David Price. He passed away in February of 2024 according to your request. I guess it was later that year that the violation was found and fines began to run, and they ran for a long time apparently because what you're saying is you discovered the heirs in Pennsylvania several years later. All right, yeah, we – obviously our model is we track down properties that are delinquent on property taxes that the heirs are unaware that they are the beneficiaries of the estate. And so we saw that it was going to go to auction at some point at the end of this year, and so we found them and notified them of their dad's passing. And then obviously we paid for the probate to get into their name and kind of handled everything from there. Okay, that's really going to be my next question as to how you got involved in this. This is part of a business that you – a property acquisition business that you're involved in. I take it. It's a commercial operation. You look for properties that have difficulties, and you step in and, okay, got it. Right. So that's how you found the property. You realized that there was – why don't we – Yeah. It's not like taxes or this lien that was accruing or both. Correct. So you go in there. Yeah. And so you tracked down the owners. And then you purchased the property? That's correct. So who owns the property now? Is it in your name? My LLC. So what's your LLC called? Home Solution Investment LLC. Solution Investment LLC. So Home Solution Investment LLC. Yes, sir. And then you're the managing agent or owner of the LLC? Correct, yeah. Okay. And when did the LLC acquire the property? June 28th, I believe, or 26th, somewhere around then. This year? Correct. And in the time between that acquisition in June and today, you brought the property into compliance, or you and your company? Yeah, I think we had it done in under a week. It was really just trying to get a hold of the neighbors to – obviously, they didn't want to start a war right when I bought a property. So I wanted to get their okay on it. But, and again, so I'm clear, until June of 26th, thereabouts, on or about that date, you didn't have the authority to go on the property and correct the violation? Correct. Right. All right. And you're seeking a reduction of the fine to $1,500? Right. Yeah, I mean, I didn't realize the cost of the county was $3,500, so I don't think it's fair for y'all to, you know, take a loss on it. So I'm fine with paying what your cost was. Yeah, unfortunately, the cost would be non-reducible typically. Right. Fines, you know, are different. Now, as you know or may know, in this jurisdiction, I, as a special magistrate, make a recommendation to the city commission, which retains the plenary authority over the ultimate or final decision on the reduction. So my, my report and recommendation will be, will be sent to the city commission to take final action, since I don't have a final order authority in this matter. But is there, I've got your documentation, I've got an exhibit packet that was submitted. Is there anything else that you want to, to tell me or anything else you want to present? No, sir. All right. So what I do in lien reduction requests is I'm going to take the matter under advisement so I can look at the paperwork, you know, more carefully. There are factors spelled out in the ordinances to take into account deciding whether to what extent the lien amount should be adjusted. I mean, just on the surface of it, your situation is favorable for reduction because you came into the process, didn't create the violation. But acquired the violation after a significant amount of fines had accrued and then brought the property into compliance in a, in a rapid fashion. So, um, uh, I, I have to, to look at everything, give it some thought before I decide what the, uh, what I think the, the reasonable amount, uh, should be. But, uh, I, I can say that I will recommend a reduction, um, uh, based on these facts. Um, but, uh, uh, I will, as I say, have to spend a little time looking at all the documentation here and going back to the original case file, which I haven't had a chance to do, but I should be able to get an order recommendation for the next 10 days or so final, for final action. Um, anything else? When do they, when do they make a decision on that roughly? Is that next month? Uh, that, that I can't tell you, but we can ask, uh, we can ask the city, uh, Taylor, maybe somebody there can let us know what the timeframe would be. Uh, our administrative, um, supervisor will be in touch with him. Okay. I'm guessing it's not going to be months and months. I don't know if it'll be next month, but probably next year. It won't be that long. Right. Okay. Does the city have anything else? No, sir. And Mr. Schwab, do you have any, any other questions or anything else you'd like to say? Uh, no, sir. I just appreciate the time. Right. As I say, I'll get, uh, get out a report on this, uh, in, uh, in the near future. It won't take me too long to do, uh, but, uh, probably within a week and 10 days. Um, all right. Um, uh, very good. Thank you, Mr. Schwab, for coming in. You are free to hear us. I think that was the last case. Is there anything else on the agenda? No, sir. Anything else to take up for the good of the order? No, sir. All right. Uh, I will, um, be able to turn these orders around pretty quickly once you've got some, uh, proposed orders up in the folder for me to review on these cases. I'll, I'll, I'll write the, uh, I'll take this reduction, uh, proposed order on that, but the rest of them, if you can put something up, I'll take a look at, get those turned around. And, uh, if there's no other business to attend to, we'll be adjourned until next month. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Good to see you, everybody. I will see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again. Good to see you all again.