All right. Good afternoon. My name is Don Wyn. I am a Florida bar licensed attorney specially appointed by the city of Titusville to serve as the magistrate. For today's code enforcement hearings, these public hearings are quasi judicial in nature. While formal rules of evidence do not apply, fundamental due process will be
observed. Everyone with the case today will have the opportunity to present testimony. You may also present evidence or call witnesses to testify on your behalf. Please note that there is no public comment portion during code enforcement hearings. To speak on a specified case, you must either be the respondent or a
witness called to testify. Everything said today will be recorded. All testimony will be given under oath. When you are sworn in, please state your name and provide your current mailing address so we have an updated record for sending any orders. The city will present its case first. Information may be displayed
on the screens and documents may be provided by the city as evidence. The city's PowerPoint presentation will also be entered into evidence unless there are any objections. After all evidence and testimony have been presented, I will make a ruling. My ruling will be reduced to writing and mailed to you. At
this time, I'll swear in all witnesses, if you stand to if you intend to testify for your case, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. You may be seated.
Um, we'll go ahead and move to the first item, which is approval of the minutes from the October 13th uh hearing. Uh, I did receive those in advance of today. I have reviewed them. They do appear to be accurate. So, I'll just go ahead and
move to approve them as drafted. Um, we'll move ahead to the hearings part and it looks like we're going straight to the Massie hearings. I'm going to skip ahead because it looks like we only have one one respondent here, uh, Mr.
Manzo. So, if you guys don't mind, actually, that's the continued hearings because we did continue that last last month. So, I'm going to skip ahead to D1 just to, uh, let Mr. Manzo get on his way. Um, 25-44 at 2655 Ali Drive. Um,
Officer May, you may you may begin. >> All right. I do have a affidavit for the notice of today's hearing and a copy of the cost recovery statement for you. >> Thank you.
>> So once again, this is the continued Massie hearing for case number 2544. Richard Manzo is the respondent and he is here today. The violation address is 2655 Alib Drive. So, um notices did go out for today's
continued hearing. Um this is the original case summary from the August 11th hearing. uh case summary again from last month's. So I did receive a call on October 29,
2025 from the respondent uh letting us know that they had made the decision to have the container removed instead of moving forward with the shed permit. Um I did a reinspection last Friday night.
It was still on the property. I did get a call yesterday from um Mr. Manzo and about the container being removed. Uh this is from October 10th. This was the original compliance state that was
given. This is from Friday night, November 7th. And this is as of this morning. So the container has been removed from the property. So we are uh it is in compliance with section
28-365 and 28-373 as the container has been removed. Um so we're asking that it is the property is placed in compliance for those two code sections and then administrative costs
and those are incorrect. >> Yeah, I was going to say I think that's okay. >> Uh it should be 146. Yes, sir. So, I apologize. 14614. Um, >> okay. Fantastic. >> Were assessed in the original hearing.
>> All right. >> Attorney Manzo, how are you, sir? >> Good afternoon, Judge. Mr. Win, uh, I'm here today as the property owner and my son who usually is talking to you is not able to make it today. But we, uh, we
had a little disagreement. He really feels that it's the principle of the thing that he we had the right to have that container there as a shed and the state law provided for it etc. as he told this tribunal several times. I told
him that may be so, but there's comes a time where practicality sets in and you know, I just don't see the worth going on. Plus, we had some unexpected medical issues come up. So, we need to focus our attention on other things the next few weeks and months. So, we made the
decision. We did remove the container and we're now asking that the penalties be waved by the city and with the understanding that we would not I would not return that container or any
other container to my property without prior approval of the city and that that container is out of the city limits so it's not an issue anymore for the city of Titusville. So you're asking for the not the
penalties because there are no penalties but the hard costs that the city is seeking the recovery would like to like to have those waved. >> I I am judge. >> Okay. Um, is the city willing to consider that or a
>> actually we we ask that they stay assessed as there was a considerable amount of staff time throughout the three months that we've had to to go with this case as well as the building department review
uh planning reviews. It's been a continuous process. Uh and while even that small amount doesn't cover all the staff time, we ask that you assess the 14614, sir.
>> All right. Thank you. Um Mr. Manzo, I I I am appreciative and you know, thankful that you guys did make the decision to remove the trailer or I'm sorry, the storage unit. Um I do I I these are hard costs that were incurred by the city, so I'm not really
inclined to remove I mean, it's not that much either. It's $146. Um, and and I'm looking at the cost recovery sheet, and these are all hard costs that the city incurred. So, I'm not really inclined to to to remove them, but um I I think you would have
the opportunity. He would have the opportunity to appeal it if he if he wishes to do so. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. So, I'm I'm going to go ahead and place it down or make the ruling um and follow the recommendation of the city. um if you do so decide to appeal, you
know, you guys are obviously able to do so. Um but I I just don't see the basis for removing it, seeing that it is these are actual hard costs that were incurred and the amount really isn't much. I don't see any real room there for me to reduce any there. So,
um okay, I'm ready to make my ruling. I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and the respondent did appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at gosh I always lose the address. 2655 Ali Bird uh Drive in Titusville, Florida
rem uh is no longer in violation. Um uh the C there will be no fine uh on the property. However, the city has incurred costs in the amount of $146.14 that will need to be paid. Um a
certified copy of the order establishing that cost recovery will uh be entered and recorded in the public records. Um the respondent will be required to notify code enforcement uh once the or to make payment arrangements and inform the city that it has been paid. Okay.
>> Mr. Win. Yes, sir. >> If I wanted to pay it today, am I able to? >> I'm sure he is able to do so. Uh, I wish I could sell you yes, but I don't have a way of printing the invoice for you. >> Do I go to the window?
>> Oh, downstairs. >> Yes, sir. To the legal office. >> It'll be produced later today. >> So, I couldn't do it now. >> No, sir. I've got no way of of later today downstairs. >> I'll do that. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yep. Thank you.
And judge, just for the record, the code enforcement people we've dealt with primarily with Miss May, but have been extremely courteous and professional during this. We just had differences as to what >> Yeah. >> we thought the law >> and you and you know, I think you should
be proud of your son. He when he came up, I thought for sure he was an attorney. The way he presented the case and everything, I'm >> agree with you. Yep. And he and he's a good son, too. >> Yeah. So, but thank you. And uh >> hopefully we won't see you again. Thank you, sir.
>> Have a good one. >> Okay, give me one second. Let's get back on track. All right. Okay. We'll move back to the Massie hearing agenda. So starting with 25-49
for Walmart stores east at 3175 Cheney Highway Titusville Florida 32780. So I have three exhibits to submit. The first is the affidavit notice of today's hearing. The second is a copy of the initial um finding effect and order. And
then the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of 23419. >> Thank you. So once again, this is the Massie hearing for case number 25-41. Our respondent is Walmart Stores East LP.
Our violation address is 3175 Cheney Highway and the code section was 30-214 for the storm water maintenance. Uh we did have proper service for today's hearing.
The case was originally heard September 8th 2025. Um the respondent was ordered to uh correct the violation on or before October 28th of 2025 and administrative costs in the amount
of 23419 were imposed. So September 10, 2025, the electrical permit was issued for the um installation of the new uh retention pond air raator. On October 2nd, 2025, I completed an inspection confirming the
pump uh the air raator was functioning as designed. And on October 9th, the final inspection and closeout of the electrical permit was completed by the building department. And November 6th of 2025, the
administrative fees were paid. So everything has been brought into compliance. Great. I've never done an order like this before. Um, >> everything's done. >> Cost all paid. All right. Well, uh,
sends me off my script. Uh, I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent. Um, they did come though, right? But >> yes, the manager did come. >> I guess relevant. Yeah, respondent did. I'm going to say did not appear. Um the
evidence demonstrates that the property located at 3175 Cheney Highway, Titusville, Florida 32780 is no longer in violation. Further, the costs of well the city's administrative costs have already been paid. Um we'll just I guess
put that in writing. All right, that's it. We'll move on to the next one which is the Schwarzinski Trust at 1635 Bahamas Street, Titusville, Florida 32780. So I have two exhibits for you. The
first is the affidavit and notice of hearing for today's hearing and the cost recovery statement in the amount of uh $312.38. So once again, this is the Massie hearing for case 25-60. Our respondent
is U uh Sherinski Trust. Our violation address and mailing address are the same at 1635 Bahamas Street. Our two code sections are uh section 102.2 for
maintenance and 505.1 for running water. So, we did have proper service for today's hearing. So, this case was originally heard on October 13, 2025. Um, there were no
respondents um that appeared at the meeting. Uh they were found to be in violation of section 102.2 2 and 505.1 in order to correct the cited violation by restoring water service to the property not no
later than noon of November 7th, 2025. a fine of $50 per day per violation um to commence on November 8th and continue daily if um compliance was not achieved and admin costs in the amount of 213 or
I'm sorry 312.38 cents were imposed. So on October 13th um during our hearings, we did receive a voice message from Lenani um who is the daughter and
the a trustee. Um she had conflicting notices of hearing. She had gotten the Massie hearing, so she was confused whether she should come or not. I did attempt to make return phone calls after the hearing um with no return reply
as of November 7th. um the house had or the property had not um the water service with the city had not been reestablished. That being said, I received a phone call about uh quarter after 12 today from Lenani. I went to
the property and she um provided entry into the house. I was able to verify that she has running water um to the the faucets and to the interior and that um hot water was available for cleaning and
sanitation purposes. So as of right now she is in compliance with the two code section. She has running water via the irrigation meter. Um, so I am asking that the property is found in compliance with section 102.2
and 505.1 and no fines be imposed. And um, I am asking for administrative costs. Miss Lenani did ask them to be waved during our conversation. Um, and I explained it would be up to
you for waving those fees. >> Um, and she knows about today's hearing. Yes. >> Okay. Well, if I wasn't >> She she has anxiety issues and did not feel comfortable in coming. She was aware of it.
>> We are intimidating here. So, um Okay. Well, unfortunately, I same with Mr. Mans. I don't really have a basis to reduce them. Um and of course, if she intends to uh uh appeal, she she certainly can. She has that avenue. So,
uh, I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and the respondant did not appear. Um, the evidence the evidence demonstrates that the property located at 1635 Bahamas Street, Titusville, Florida, 32780 is
now in compliance. Um, the city's administrative costs in the amount of $312.38 uh have not been paid and shall be imposed uh on the property. Uh certified copy of this order will be recorded in
the public records. Um done and ordered. >> Thank you. >> All right. All right. Still you for 2564. Brian de Brian Davis. Is that you? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. 25-64. That's 302 Willow Street, Titusville, Florida 32780. >> So I have three items to submit. The first one is the affidavit and notice of today's hearing. Uh second is the copy
of um the original order. And the third is the cost recovery statement in the amount of $241.94. So once again, this is our uh Massie hearing for case number 2564. Our respondent, Brian Kenneth Davis, is
our respondent. Our violation and mailing address are the same. 302 Willow Street, Titusville, Florida. And there's one violation section 308.2.2. Uh we did have proper service for today's hearing.
So the case was originally heard on October 13th. Our respondent did not appear at the meeting. The respondent was found in violation of 308.2.2 and ordered to correct the violation by removing the discarded appliances from
the property no later than noon on November 7th, 2025. uh a fine in the amount of $250 per day um per violation commencing on November 8th to be imposed and continue daily
until it is corrected. Our in administrative costs in the amount of 24194 were imposed. So I have had no contact with the owner and there has been no changes to the property. This is the photo from the
initial hearing September 26th and this is from a Friday evening. Um again the location the number of appliances have not changed. All attempts to make contact with the owner have resulted in no contact back.
the notice that you post on the door, is that has that notice been is it still there or >> No, it it's removed. >> So, it does appear that >> someone's there. Okay. >> So, and I leave my business card, >> right? >> And still know and I do have a phone
number, but I've never been able to make contact through that phone number. >> Okay. >> So, conclusions of fact, we the property does remain in violation of 308.2.2. Um, we are asking that the property is
found in violation. Um, assess the administrative costs and, uh, impose the fine of $250 per day. Um, commencing November 8th. >> Okay. Uh, I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was
properly provided to the respondent and respondent did not appear. The evidence demonstrates that the property located at 302 Willow Street, Titusville, Florida, 32780, remains in violation. Specifically, uh, multiple appliances,
um, and and and other equipment are, uh, on on the property and have not been removed. Um, the city has established a continuing violation of what section is that? That is section 6-109,
uh, IPMC 308.2.2. 2. Um, accordingly, a fine of $250 per day is imposed, commencing November 8th, 2025, and continuing daily until the violations are corrected. Additionally, the cost of $241.94
have not been paid. The certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. The respondent is required to notify code enforcement once property is brought into compliance so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. Done and ordered.
We'll move to our last Massie hearing which is 25-69. This is Santiago and Gonzalez at 412 Meno Lane, Titusville, Florida 32796. >> Good afternoon, sir. >> How are you?
>> Still in vacation mode. >> Okay. I'd like to enter to you the uh the affidavit of hearing and the cost recovery statement. It should be in here and I forgot the amount.
Uh 13628 sir. Thank you, officer. And this property is still in violation for uh section 13-73 inoperable vehicles. Uh, Officer Wright, code officer Wright checked it for me Friday
since I was out of town. Uh, I went by again this morning at 10:35 a.m. and the vehicle is still in violation. I've had no further contact with anyone from the property. I did send uh the son
a message on Friday uh October the 24th asking him to bring the property in compliance and it has not been done. >> They didn't appear at the initial hearing right? >> No, sir.
>> All right. Not much else to consider there, is there? I find based on the evidence and testimony presented that notice was properly provided to the respondent and respondent did not appear. Uh the evidence demonstrates that the property located at 412 Mendel Lane,
Titusville, Florida 32796 remains in violation. Specifically, uh the inoperable vehicles remain on the property um and the property is not in compliance with the previous order um from October uh 2025. Therefore, I find
that the city has established a continuing violation of sections 12-23 and section 13-23. >> No, just correction, sir. Just 137. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. Just 13-23 for inoperative vehicles. Sorry about that. Okay.
Accordingly, a fine of $100 per day is imposed commencing on November 8th, 2025 and continuing daily until the violation is corrected. Additionally, the costs in the amount of just had it
13628 has not been paid. A certified copy of this order will be recorded in the public records constituting a lean on the subject property. Respondent is required to notify code enforcement once the property is brought into compliance so that code enforcement can verify and confirm. Done and ordered.
All right. And I believe that concludes our Massie hearing. So, we'll just move to our initial hearing for today and this is 25-74 uh Bethun and Adlesen Aden at 218 Ojiway Avenue, Titusville, Florida
32780. Sir, I have uh three items to present to you. The notice of hearing, notice of violation posting affidavit, and the cost recovery for $18,911. Uh the respondent is Shirley Bethune and
Jack Aden and also Sunwest Mortgage Company, Inc. The violation address 218 Ojiway. Uh the mail to address is 218 Ojiway and since it's a registered property also send it to the mortgage company of 183303
Ridley Road, Centros, California. Uh the violations are the accessory structure for the fence 302.7 and 304.2 of the IPMC code for enclosure of the swimming pool. Uh it also had an overgrowth of the weeds but we evade it through the
city. So that's been taken care of. Uh the initial violation was on August 6th, was given till August 20th to comply. It was mailed to and certified on the 6th as well. And the notice of hearing was also posted at city hall and
on the property on October 29th. Uh during proactive checks for violations in the area, I found this location had a fence falling in need of repair overgrowth of grass and weeds and no swimming pool enclosure for an above ground pool that was in the backyard. Uh
not vi notice of violation was posted and mailed to the owner. There's been no contact with the owner, but I did receive a letter from the mortgage company stating since the property is still invi or I'm sorry, since the property is still occupied, they're not going to correct any of the violations
until they move out. Uh results of the inspection, other than us cutting the grass, no other action has been taken to fix the fence or make any pool enclosures. Uh this was the initial check. You can kind of see where the fence on the side there with the garage is down and
damaged and there is a above ground pool in the backyard. Uh there's a better shot of the reinspection. The fence is still down with the pool in the backyard. Uh and then you can see the above ground pool there as well. U with the fence still
damaged. I thought I had one of it cut, but the the above ground pool is still there. I don't know for sure how much water it has in it because I can't go in the backyard, but um but since it is in the backyard, it's also it's an access road in the back to see the backyard. So, I
was still on public property to see it. Um the conclusions of facts, the accessory structure of the fence, the fence is falling and missing slats and the swimming pool does not have proper protective fence or security around it. Uh the recommendation is the fence needs
to be repaired or replaced and the pool needs to have a proper enclosure or remove the pool. Uh, we ordered a respondent to correct the violations by December 5th if violation I'm sorry if the respondant does not comply with a fine of $100 per
day per violation cons commencing on December 6th until the violation is corrected in order to responded to pay the administrative cost of $18911 and to contact me for reinspection once it is corrected.
I'm glad the city's new attorney is here so I can ask her a question. That's sort of a legal exercise. So, I was confused there why the mortgage company was listed there. So, I checked on that. You know, were they on title or something
like that. So, it turns out uh the Bethun and Aden parties have been foreclosed. >> Um the bank took title on October 9th. certificate of title was issued on October 9th in favor of um the bank. Our notice would have gone out on October
8th. So being that that's the case, can do they as the new owner, how does that work? because they have a notice of list pendants on on the property which I guess concluded at the time that
>> right the statute provides that requirements based on our well I have it here but the tax property appraiser office right
>> yeah that's what the statute has to go by >> right >> so at the time when our notice was sent out >> which would have been a before the certificate of title it would have been add and bthoon >> correct >> but like you said there
notice that there was a proper foreclosure action so of course there are sometimes competing legal analysis our position would be we're following the statute and we notice at the time
the owner so that would be our position >> right But yes, it is a good legal exercise. >> And I I would say that's probably right because this is an initial hearing anyway. Uh you know, this is not where we're actually imposing the lean per se.
Right. So >> I tell you this and we'll talk as a as a group where I'm coming from. We only have one hearing. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> So which is interesting that we have two hearings here. >> That is that we can further discuss
>> but again right >> you know our position was properly noticed based on the statute >> which um I don't know here do we do all four or we just do one notice of the requirement or do we doert
regular on the property and city hall >> so it's on the property and you know it's the even though it's the bank that ultimately foreclosed and took title it's still Obviously, buyer beware anytime you're taking title via foreclosure. So, I would say they're they they
took title subject to any ongoing violation. So, I tend to agree um with what you're saying. I just the dates were just interestingly enough that like let me just pose this to you. Yeah. >> For sure.
>> All right. Okay. Anyway, um All right. I've accepted and considered documentary evidence including photos and sworn testimony relating to the matter from city staff.
I find that the respondents being Shirley Bethun, Jacques Aden, and Sunwest Property Investments LLC, which is the mortgage company. And so they are listed as a respondent, I think, in the documents that you provided to me.
>> Yeah, like I said, I And you sent the notice. They sent me a letter stating they they received the notification and they're not going to do anything since the property was still occupied and as of today they're still living there. >> So respondent Sunwest Property Investments is the owner of the property with the address of 218 Ojiway Avenue. I
find that all required notices were provided in accordance with chapter 163 Florida statute and city code and notice was met for this hearing based on the evidence presented. to find that violations of sections. Let me get the exact sections here. Bring back up the PowerPoint, would you?
Um, >> I think the violation letter should be in that folder. >> Yeah, there was because there was one that was fixed, right? Okay. So sections 6-109, I'm sorry, section 302.7 regarding
accessory structures and section 6 uh- 109 IPMC section 304.2 regarding enclosures and swimming pools um exist upon the property and respondents were given a reasonable amount of time to correct the violations but have either failed or refused to do so. Um the
corrective actions for these violations will be to to fix the fence and um install a proper protective fencing or security around the swimming pool. Um additionally I find that the city has incurred costs in the amount of
>> 189 >> 1891 cents. Such amount shall be included with this order. Respondent shall be given until um noon on December 5th 2025. uh to correct the violations. Respondent shall be responsible for notifying code
enforcement of completion of such corrections who shall then confirm the status of the violation. If respondent fails to correct the violation, a fine will be entered in the amount of $100 per day until the violation comes into compliance. Further and future violations of the same section shall be
classified as a repeat violation. Certified order may be recorded in the public records of Bvard County. It is so ordered. Thank you. Um and I believe that takes us to the code enforcement manager report.
>> Uh no report sir. >> All right then I will go ahead and move to adjourn us at 136. >> Yes sir.